High Court

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This application under Section 529 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to direct the court concerned to decide the Criminal Case No.3026 of 2017 (Old Case No. 2668 of 2009), arising out of case crime no.28 of 2009 under Section 394, 504, 411 IPC, Police Station- Medical, District-Meerut pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut expeditiously within stipulated period.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the accused in the said case. It is further submitted that in this matter the FIR was lodged in the year 2009 and now after submission of the charge sheet the matter is pending since 2017. It is further submitted that the charges have been framed in this matter but no evidence has been recorded. The Court concerned is not taking proper interest in disposal of the said sessions trial.

4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer.

5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. Before passing any order on the instant application it is pertinent to note the provisions of Section 529 BNSS: “Sec.529. Duty of High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over Courts -Every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Session and Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by the Judges and Magistrates.”

6. So far as the instant case is concerned, charge sheet was filed in this matter on 8.5.2009 and charges were framed on 1.8.2011 against the applicant/ accused. It also transpires from the perusal of record that after framing the charge which was denied by the accused applicant, the trial Court proceeded to summon the witnesses of the case and several orders were passed for the production of prosecution witnesses before the Court but it appears from the perusal of the order sheet of the case that on many occasions the orders passed by the trial Court were not complied with by the office and at the same time even if the processes were sent the prosecution took absolutely no interest for the production of the witnesses before the Court and the processes issued by the Court were not returned by the police as served or unserved. This was the reason behind pendency of the case in hand, which pertains to the year 2009 and fall within the category of critically old cases. The perusal of the record also shows that the delay was not caused by any conduct or default of the applicant/ accused.

7. In view of that and keeping in view the fact that the matter is very old and running at the stage of evidence for more than 15 years, the trial Court is strictly directed to make all the possible endeavors for early disposal of the case preferably within a period of six months after procuring the presence of all the witnesses. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournment will be sought/granted.

8. This Court has experienced that whenever a direction for early or time bound disposal of a case is given by any higher Court to the trial Courts it creates a kind of stress to the concerned Presiding Officer, who is already overburdened with the heap of cases pending before his Court and since he is made personally liable for the disposal of that particular case some extra pressure is imposed upon him.

9. In the above factual scenario this court owes a duty to impress upon that a direction issued from a higher court for expeditious or time bound disposal of a particular case is never meant to create any pressure or undue burden upon the presiding officer/court but it only rings the sense of alertness of the court to the fundamental component of the Indian Judicial System which is undoubtedly the 'fair and expeditious trial'.

10. In the present case, this Court finds that the root of the problem lies in the factual matrix that on one side the office kept avoiding the execution of the orders passed by the trial Court and on the other side the police also took no interest for the service of process issued to the witnesses of the case and the government counsel posted in that particular Court had also been negligent and seldom made any effort at his own level to produce the witnesses before the Court. It is reminded that the criminal Courts are never toothless or powerless to ensure compliance of its own orders by the concerned police and administrative authorities. They have got ample powers for the same under the law itself. The trial court is expected to invoke its power to ensure service of process upon the accused person/ witness, which is sent under its seal and order in order to procure the presence of the accused/ witness. This condition leads this Court to look into the problem from a different angle and that is why the Court supposes it necessary to fix the responsibility of all the stake holders of a particular case. The Presiding Officer of the particular Court cannot and should not be held responsible alone for the actual compliance of the direction of any higher Court.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also laid emphasis upon the aforesaid fact and found an opportunity to clarify the stake holders of a case in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2016, Mahender Chawla & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and it was held in paragraph 13 of the judgement mentioned below: "13. CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRESERVATION OF RECORDS: All stakeholders including the Police, the Prosecution Department, Court Staff, Lawyers from both sides shall maintain full confidentiality and shall ensure that under no circumstance, any record, document or information in relation to the proceedings under this scheme shall be shared with any person in any manner except with the Trial Court/Appellate Court and that too, on a written order."

12. In the like manner in Suresh Chandra Jana Vs. State of West Bengal, (2017) 16 SCC 466 the Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to hold in the following manner: "27. A word on criminal justice system before we deal with other aspects of this case. Criminal justice system is not only about infrastructure or surveillance, rather it is how we protect our countrymen, it is how we recuperate after loss, it is how we show faith in our Constitution and how we uphold the values of justice, fairness and equality. There is no dispute that our criminal justice system is a complex one, administered at various levels of Government and fashioned by a range of actors. When such complicated system is in place, there is a requirement for higher discipline at every level. I am of the opinion that traditional roles played by the stakeholders in criminal justice system would revolutionize, if there is an increased awareness of the victim rights. Emphasis on the victim rights would bring about public trust in our criminal justice system."

13. At this juncture with a view to defend the valuable right to speedy trial of a litigant it is clarified firmly that the Court/ Presiding Officer is not the only stake holder in the trial and disposal of a case, hence, besides the P.O. concerned, all the stake holders i.e. police and executive authorities, counsels from both the sides, parties to the case, staff etc. are also made bound by such order and it will be their responsibility also to assist the Court in every manner for the expeditious disposal of this case.

14. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Fhd

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This application under Section 529 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to direct the court concerned to decide the Criminal Case No.3026 of 2017 (Old Case No. 2668 of 2009), arising out of case crime no.28 of 2009 under Section 394, 504, 411 IPC, Police Station- Medical, District-Meerut pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut expeditiously within stipulated period.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the accused in the said case. It is further submitted that in this matter the FIR was lodged in the year 2009 and now after submission of the charge sheet the matter is pending since 2017. It is further submitted that the charges have been framed in this matter but no evidence has been recorded. The Court concerned is not taking proper interest in disposal of the said sessions trial.

4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer.

5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. Before passing any order on the instant application it is pertinent to note the provisions of Section 529 BNSS: “Sec.529. Duty of High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over Courts -Every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Session and Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by the Judges and Magistrates.”

6. So far as the instant case is concerned, charge sheet was filed in this matter on 8.5.2009 and charges were framed on 1.8.2011 against the applicant/ accused. It also transpires from the perusal of record that after framing the charge which was denied by the accused applicant, the trial Court proceeded to summon the witnesses of the case and several orders were passed for the production of prosecution witnesses before the Court but it appears from the perusal of the order sheet of the case that on many occasions the orders passed by the trial Court were not complied with by the office and at the same time even if the processes were sent the prosecution took absolutely no interest for the production of the witnesses before the Court and the processes issued by the Court were not returned by the police as served or unserved. This was the reason behind pendency of the case in hand, which pertains to the year 2009 and fall within the category of critically old cases. The perusal of the record also shows that the delay was not caused by any conduct or default of the applicant/ accused.

7. In view of that and keeping in view the fact that the matter is very old and running at the stage of evidence for more than 15 years, the trial Court is strictly directed to make all the possible endeavors for early disposal of the case preferably within a period of six months after procuring the presence of all the witnesses. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournment will be sought/granted.

8. This Court has experienced that whenever a direction for early or time bound disposal of a case is given by any higher Court to the trial Courts it creates a kind of stress to the concerned Presiding Officer, who is already overburdened with the heap of cases pending before his Court and since he is made personally liable for the disposal of that particular case some extra pressure is imposed upon him.

9. In the above factual scenario this court owes a duty to impress upon that a direction issued from a higher court for expeditious or time bound disposal of a particular case is never meant to create any pressure or undue burden upon the presiding officer/court but it only rings the sense of alertness of the court to the fundamental component of the Indian Judicial System which is undoubtedly the 'fair and expeditious trial'.

10. In the present case, this Court finds that the root of the problem lies in the factual matrix that on one side the office kept avoiding the execution of the orders passed by the trial Court and on the other side the police also took no interest for the service of process issued to the witnesses of the case and the government counsel posted in that particular Court had also been negligent and seldom made any effort at his own level to produce the witnesses before the Court. It is reminded that the criminal Courts are never toothless or powerless to ensure compliance of its own orders by the concerned police and administrative authorities. They have got ample powers for the same under the law itself. The trial court is expected to invoke its power to ensure service of process upon the accused person/ witness, which is sent under its seal and order in order to procure the presence of the accused/ witness. This condition leads this Court to look into the problem from a different angle and that is why the Court supposes it necessary to fix the responsibility of all the stake holders of a particular case. The Presiding Officer of the particular Court cannot and should not be held responsible alone for the actual compliance of the direction of any higher Court.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also laid emphasis upon the aforesaid fact and found an opportunity to clarify the stake holders of a case in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2016, Mahender Chawla & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and it was held in paragraph 13 of the judgement mentioned below: "13. CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRESERVATION OF RECORDS: All stakeholders including the Police, the Prosecution Department, Court Staff, Lawyers from both sides shall maintain full confidentiality and shall ensure that under no circumstance, any record, document or information in relation to the proceedings under this scheme shall be shared with any person in any manner except with the Trial Court/Appellate Court and that too, on a written order."

12. In the like manner in Suresh Chandra Jana Vs. State of West Bengal, (2017) 16 SCC 466 the Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to hold in the following manner: "27. A word on criminal justice system before we deal with other aspects of this case. Criminal justice system is not only about infrastructure or surveillance, rather it is how we protect our countrymen, it is how we recuperate after loss, it is how we show faith in our Constitution and how we uphold the values of justice, fairness and equality. There is no dispute that our criminal justice system is a complex one, administered at various levels of Government and fashioned by a range of actors. When such complicated system is in place, there is a requirement for higher discipline at every level. I am of the opinion that traditional roles played by the stakeholders in criminal justice system would revolutionize, if there is an increased awareness of the victim rights. Emphasis on the victim rights would bring about public trust in our criminal justice system."

13. At this juncture with a view to defend the valuable right to speedy trial of a litigant it is clarified firmly that the Court/ Presiding Officer is not the only stake holder in the trial and disposal of a case, hence, besides the P.O. concerned, all the stake holders i.e. police and executive authorities, counsels from both the sides, parties to the case, staff etc. are also made bound by such order and it will be their responsibility also to assist the Court in every manner for the expeditious disposal of this case.

14. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Fhd