Complaint Case Pending For 7 Yrs: To Curb 'Tareekh Pe Tareekh' Culture, Allahabad HC Directs Magistrate To Pass Order In 1 Week
The Allahabad High Court recently directed a magistrate to pass an appropriate order under Sections 203 or 204 CrPC (as the case may be) in a complaint case pending before a Court in Ballia for the last 7 years.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that such a direction was being given to the magistrate concerned to secure the ends of justice and to curb the culture of 'Tareekh Pe Tareekh'.
“…to secure the ends of justice and to curb culture of 'तताररीख पपे तताररीख' inherent powers of this Court are invoked and this application is disposed of with a direction that on next date fixed, learned Magistrate will hear the arguments of counsel for applicant and within a week, thereafter, will pass an appropriate order i.e. either under Sections 203 or 204 Cr.P.C., as the case may be,” the court's order reads.
The Court passed this order in a plea moved by Anjani Kumar Yadav under section 482 CrPC to direct the magistrate concerned to decide the case, which he filed in 2017 and is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court, Ballia.
Essentially, the applicant (complainant) filed an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC on April 24, 2017, however, till date, no order has been passed either under Section 203 or 204 CrPC, as the case may be.
The bench was apprised that the case has been listed on more than 50 dates since the institution of the complaint. However, it has still not been decided.
It was also submitted that the complainant's statement under Section 200 CrPC was recorded on October 18, 2021, after more than four years of filing the complaint case.
The Court further noted that the statement of witness 1 (PW-1) was recorded on October 15, 2022, and the statement of witness 2 (PW-2) was recorded on January 9, 2024, over a year later.
After that, despite the case being listed multiple times and the applicant's counsel not seeking adjournments, no orders were passed in the complaint.
Terming it as a 'travesty of justice', the Court issued the aforementioned direction to the concerned magistrate. Also, the single judge directed the concerned District Judge to submit a compliance report to the Court and a report on why there was enormous delay in the present case.
Advocate Satyendra Kumar Pandey appeared for the applicant
Case title - Anjani Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: