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
5 paragraphs · 189 wordsS. C. Chaurasia, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 and perused the F.I.R. as also the relevant material on record.
There is no need to issue notices to opposite parties nos. 4, 5 and 6 who are accused in this case hence the issuance of notices in respect of them is dispensed with.
It is submitted that the F.I.R. in question was lodged on 19.09.2007 under Section 302 I.P.C. but till date neither any arrest has been made nor any significant progress has been achieved in the investigation. It is further said that a representation dated 25.04.2008 was also moved addressed to opposite party no. 2, Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow which has also not been disposed of till date.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction that the aforesaid representation dated 25.04.2008 may be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law by opposite party no. 2 and he may also ensure proper and expeditious investigation in the matter.