High CourtsSingle Bench

Chandr Gupta Gautam vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 14 November 2025 · Citation: (2025) 11 UK CK 0342

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pankaj Purohit, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 147, 148, 323, 354, 427, 504, 506
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1992 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 293 words

Pankaj Purohit, J

1.

This C528 application has been filed by the applicant seeking expeditious hearing and disposal of Criminal Case No. 223 of 2023, State vs. Ram Prakash Gupta and others, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 354, 323, 504, 506, 427, and 120-B of the IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar, within a stipulated time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

2.

It is contended by the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant that the FIR in the matter was lodged on 30.08.2022, the charge sheet was submitted after investigation on 27.01.2023, and cognizance was taken on 27.02.2023; however, till date the proceedings of the instant criminal case have not progressed with the required pace, and therefore an order for expeditious disposal is required from this Court.

3.

The learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant submits that there are 14 accused persons in total, and till now some of the accused have not appeared before the Trial Court.

4.

I have perused the records of the instant C528 application, specifically the order-sheet annexed by the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant. From the order-sheet, the submissions of the Legal Aid Counsel are found false for the reason that, as per the order dated 13.08.2025, the case was listed for framing of charges and all the accused had appeared before the Court.

5.

Since charges have yet not been framed against the accused persons, it would be a futile exercise to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the case within a particular time frame.

6.

Accordingly, no case is made out for passing any such order in the matter.

7.

The writ petition stands dismissed.