Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Jaideep Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P on 13 February, 2026
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.2 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 56/2026
JAIDEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
IA No.37518/2026-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 13-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR
Mr. Arun Kumar Nagar, Adv.
Mr. Manohar Naagar, Adv.
Mr. Roop Chaudhary, Adv.
Ms. Savita, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The present writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as “the
Constitution”) has been filed by the petitioner, who
claims to be a victim’s legal heir, seeking enforcement
of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution on the ground that three
connected criminal revision petitions, in which judgment
was reserved by the High Court of Judicature at
Signature Not Verified Allahabad on 05.02.2020, have not been listed for
Digitally signed by
effective hearing and no judgment has been pronounced
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.02.24
18:52:31 IST
Reason:
1
till date, thereby stalling the criminal trial arising
out of Case Crime No. 68 of 1994. The petitioner further
seeks directions for implementation of the judgment
dated 15.07.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 2914 of 2024, whereby the High Court was required to
re-evaluate and decide the pending criminal revision
petitions concerning withdrawal of prosecution in
respect of the remaining accused.
2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are
as follows:
2.1 On 30.05.1994, Case Crime No. 68 of 1994 came to be
registered at Police Station Charkhi, Sub-District
Kalpi, District Jalaun, for offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). The
petitioner asserts that the incident resulted in the
death of two persons, including a family member of the
petitioner, and that several others sustained injuries.
2.2 The case against nine accused persons was committed to
the Court of Sessions in the year 1995 and was
registered as Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1995. The case of
another accused, who is stated to have been absconding,
was committed in the year 2004 and was registered as
Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2004. The petitioner states
that both trials were subsequently taken up together as
they arose out of the same incident.
W.P.(Crl.)No(s). 56/2026
2
2.3 During the pendency of the trial, the State Government
issued a Government Order dated 16.04.2008 proposing
withdrawal of prosecution in respect of one accused,
namely Chhotey Singh.
2.4 An application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) was
moved on 27.01.2012 seeking withdrawal of prosecution
against Chhotey Singh. Thereafter, a modified Government
Order dated 29.02.2012 was issued, and a fresh
application under Section 321 of the CrPC was moved on
05.03.2012 seeking withdrawal of prosecution in respect
of the remaining accused persons as well.
2.5 By a common order dated 19.05.2012, the Trial Court
allowed withdrawal of prosecution in respect of Chhotey
Singh and rejected the prayer for withdrawal in respect
of the remaining accused persons.
2.6 Aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2012, the remaining
accused persons preferred Criminal Revision No. 1678 of
2012, Criminal Revision No. 1874 of 2012 and Criminal
Revision No. 1900 of 2012 before the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad. The predecessor-in-interest of
the petitioner also preferred Criminal Revision No. 2107
of 2012 challenging the part of the order dated
19.05.2012 by which withdrawal of prosecution was
permitted in favour of Chhotey Singh.
2.7 The petitioner states that during the period between
2016 and 2019, the trial court proceeded with theW.P.(Crl.)No(s). 56/2026
3
evidence and other steps in the trial. It is further
stated that a Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 114 of
2019 filed by one of the accused before the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad was dismissed on 20.05.2019,
and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial.
2.8 The three criminal revisions filed by the accused,
namely Criminal Revision No. 1678 of 2012, Criminal
Revision No. 1874 of 2012 and Criminal Revision No. 1900
of 2012, were heard together and judgment was reserved
on 05.02.2020. The petitioner asserts that an order of
stay of the trial proceedings has continued thereafter.
2.9 The petitioner further states that, notwithstanding the
passage of several years after 05.02.2020, no judgment
has been pronounced in the aforesaid criminal revision
petitions, and that the stay has had the effect of
preventing the trial court from proceeding further with
the trial.
2.10 In the meantime, proceedings arising out of Criminal
Revision No. 2107 of 2012 reached this Court by way of
SLP (Crl.) No. 16417 of 2023, which was disposed of by
judgment dated 15.07.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 2914 of
2024. The petitioner states that this Court decided
Criminal Revision No. 2107 of 2012 on merits, and
further directed that a copy of the order be sent to the
Registry of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
with an observation that the High Court shall,
thereafter, re-evaluate and decide the remainingW.P.(Crl.)No(s). 56/2026
4
criminal revision petitions relating to withdrawal of
prosecution.
2.11 The petitioner states that, in pursuance of the judgment
dated 15.07.2024, a supplementary affidavit was filed
before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad placing
the said judgment on record, and multiple listing
applications were moved. It is also stated that a letter
was addressed to the Registrar General of the High Court
requesting that the matters be listed.
2.12 The case status of Criminal Revision No. 1678 of 2012,
Criminal Revision No. 1874 of 2012 and Criminal Revision
No. 1900 of 2012 was checked by us on the official
website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
and the last listing shown therein is dated 04.02.2026,
on which date the matters were again adjourned.
2.13 On these pleadings, the petitioner asserts that the
continued pendency of the criminal revision petitions,
coupled with the subsisting stay, has resulted in the
criminal trial remaining at a standstill, and has led to
the present writ petition seeking time-bound disposal of
the pending criminal revision petitions and compliance
with the directions contained in the judgment dated
15.07.2024 passed by this Court.
3. At the outset, it is necessary to record that this Court
does not ordinarily entertain petitions under Article 32
of the Constitution seeking directions in relation to
the listing, hearing or disposal of matters pending
W.P.(Crl.)No(s). 56/2026
5
before a High Court. The extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court is to be exercised with great circumspection,
for this Court is not intended to function as a
supervisory forum over the day to day administration of
justice in every High Court, nor does it sit to monitor
the manner in which rosters are worked or cases are
taken up. Interference at that level would undermine the
constitutional position of the High Courts and disturb
the settled discipline of judicial hierarchy. It is only
in rare and exceptional situations, where continuing
inaction is shown to result in a demonstrable
infringement of fundamental rights and where no equally
efficacious remedy is available, that this Court may be
called upon to exercise its jurisdiction to secure the
effectiveness of constitutional guarantees.
4. Article 139A of the Constitution vests this Court with
the power to withdraw, and in appropriate cases to
transfer, proceedings pending before High Courts. The
text of Article 139A reads as follows:
“139A.
(1) Where cases involving the same or
substantially the same questions of law are
pending before the Supreme Court and one or
more High Courts or before two or more High
Courts and the Supreme Court is satisfied on
its own motion or on an application made by the
Attorney-General of India or by a party to any
such case that such questions are substantial
questions of general importance, the SupremeW.P.(Crl.)No(s). 56/2026
6
Court may withdraw the case or cases pending
before the High Court or the High Courts and
dispose of all the cases itself:
Provided that the Supreme Court may after
determining the said questions of law return
any case so withdrawn together with a copy of
its judgment on such questions to the High
Court from which the case has been withdrawn,
and the High Court shall on receipt thereof,
proceed to dispose of the case in conformity
with such judgment.
(2) The Supreme Court may, if it deems it
expedient so to do for the ends of justice,
transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings
pending before any High Court to any other High
Court.”
5. Article 139A(1) of the Constitution is intended to
secure coherent and effective adjudication where the
same or substantially the same questions of law arise in
proceedings pending before this Court and before one or
more High Courts. The provision enables this Court to
withdraw the case or cases pending before the High Court
and to dispose of all such cases itself when the
questions of law are substantial and of general
importance. The object is to ensure that a matter which
raises questions of systemic significance is not left to
travel through multiple layers in a fragmented manner,
and that the determination of such questions is rendered
with uniform authority.
W.P.(Crl.)No(s). 56/2026
7
6. In the present proceedings, the record discloses that
the continuance of Criminal Revision No. 1678 of 2012,
Criminal Revision No. 1874 of 2012 and Criminal Revision
No. 1900 of 2012 before the High Court has had a direct
and continuing bearing on the petitioner’s assertion of
denial of speedy justice. The revisions were heard and
judgment was reserved on 05.02.2020. No judgment has
been pronounced thereafter and the proceedings have
remained in a state of repeated listing and adjournment.
Moreover, the case status of these matters reflected
that the matters were last listed on 04.02.2026 and were
again adjourned. The subsisting stay has, as pleaded,
prevented the Trial Court from proceeding, with the
result that criminal proceedings arising out of an
incident of 30.05.1994 have remained stalled for
decades.
7. The judgment of this Court dated 15.07.2024 in Criminal
Appeal No. 2914 of 2024 has already examined the manner
in which the application under Section 321 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
“CrPC”) was dealt with in relation to accused Chhote
Singh, and has set aside the order dated 19.05.2012
insofar as it permitted withdrawal of prosecution
against him. The said judgment also records grave
concern about the stagnation of trial proceedings and
the impact of repeated adjournments, and it requires
that the remaining criminal revision petitions relating
to withdrawal of prosecution be re-evaluated and decided
in the light of the observations made therein. The
remaining revisions pending before the High Court cannot
W.P.(Crl.)No(s). 56/2026
8
be decided without giving full effect to the legal and
constitutional observations contained in the judgment
dated 15.07.2024 and to the discipline that flows from
Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution.
8. In these circumstances, the questions that arise are not
confined to the private interests of parties in a
pending revision. They implicate the effective
enforcement of binding directions of this Court, the
constitutional requirement of timely adjudication after
a matter is heard and judgment is reserved, and the
credibility of criminal process in serious offences
where long delay itself produces irreversible prejudice.
These are questions of substantial and general
importance. Article 139A(1) of the Constitution
therefore furnishes the constitutional mechanism by
which this Court may withdraw the connected criminal
revision petitions to itself and decide them, so that
the adjudicatory process is not rendered illusory by
prolonged pendency and that the mandate of the judgment
dated 15.07.2024 is carried to its logical conclusion in
an effective and time bound manner.
9. In view of the above, we are issuing notice to the
Respondents in this Writ Petition and summoning the
records of the following matters with necessary
directions.
i) In exercise of the powers under Article 139A(1) of
the Constitution, Criminal Revision No. 1678 of
2012, Criminal Revision No. 1874 of 2012 andW.P.(Crl.)No(s). 56/2026
9
Criminal Revision No. 1900 of 2012 pending before
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad are
withdrawn to this Court for disposal and tagged
with this writ petition.
ii) The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad shall transmit to the Registry of this
Court the complete record of the aforesaid criminal
revisions, including all interlocutory applications
and orders passed therein, within a period of three
weeks from today. If the original record of
Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1995 and Sessions Trial
No. 66 of 2004 is presently requisitioned by and
lying with the High Court, the Registrar General
shall ensure that the original trial record is
returned to the Trial Court within three weeks from
today. The High Court may retain authenticated
copies for the purposes of the record being
transmitted to this Court.
10. Upon receipt of the record, the Registry of this Court
shall, after obtaining due orders of the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India, place the withdrawn criminal revisions
along with this writ petition before an appropriate
Bench of this Court.
(NEETU KHAJURIA) (RANJANA SHAILEY)
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
W.P.(Crl.)No(s). 56/2026
10
