Anurag Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 14 Others

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief (s):-

"i. To issue order or direction the court of Learned City Magistrate, District Gorakhpur to decide the Case No.17471 of 2024, Computerize Case No.D202405310017471, under Section 152 B.N.S.S. Act, (Anurag Pandey and others Vs. Jahur Ali and others), within the time specified by this Hon'ble court, So justice may be done"

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proceedings were initiated for unauthorized encroachment of a public way on the complaint of the petitioner under Section 133 Cr.P.C. (152 B.N.S.S.), in which a preliminary order was passed by the City Magistrate, District Gorakhpur, on 12.08.2024, directing the opposite parties to show cause why the illegal encroachment should not be removed and to submit their reply. However, neither have the opposite parties submitted their reply nor has the concerned Magistrate decided the proceedings. It is, therefore, prayed that a direction be issued to the concerned Magistrate to decide the proceedings expeditiously.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

It is apparent that on the complaint of the petitioner, proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. (152 B.N.S.S.) were initiated against the opposite parties, and a preliminary order was issued on 12.08.2024 directing the opposite parties to show cause why the alleged encroachment should not be removed and to furnish their reply. As per the annexed certified copy of the order sheet, it is evident that the opposite parties have not appeared before the concerned Magistrate, and the proceedings are pending for recording evidence of the parties.

It is further evident that although the petitioner has not adduced his evidence, he has approached this Court seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of the proceedings without completing his evidentiary obligations. Since the petitioner himself is not ready to fulfill his obligations by producing evidence, the concerned Magistrate cannot be directed to decide the proceedings expeditiously.

It is apparent that the instant petition has been filed in abuse of the process of law. In view of the above facts, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Sandeep Jain,J.)

May 6, 2026

Mayank