Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1778 (ALL)

Ravindra v. State of U. P.

2022-11-11

NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.-Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking a suitable direction to the learned Additional District Judge-1, District-Muzaffar Nagar to decide the Sessions Trial No. 924 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2011 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Kakrauli, District-Muzaffarnagar as expeditiously as possible within stipulated time. 3. The prosecution case as culled out from the FIR is that on 3.2.2011 at about 3.00 pm an altercation took place between the brother of complainant Shokendra and his villagers Anuj, Rajendra and his family members. Thereafter at about 6.00 pm., the accused persons namely Rajendra, Ramchandra, Bhopal, Anuj, Rajeev and Amit with intention to kill, attacked with firearms on the brothers of the applicant namely Shokendra and Subhash as well as his nephews namely Sachin and Jagpal, in which the brother of the applicant Shokendra died on the way of hospital, while others sustained grievous injuries. With regard to the aforesaid incident, the applicant immediately on the same day at about 22.50 hours lodged an FIR against the aforesaid accused persons. The police after investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the aforesaid six accused. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Muzaffarnagar vide his order dated 20.4.2011 took cognizance on the above mentioned charge-sheet and summoned the accused persons registering case No. 2224/9 of 2011. Thereafter, the matter was committed for trial to the Court of sessions on 26.9.2011 and registered as Sessions Trial No. 924 of 2011 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, District-Muzaffarnagar, which is presently pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, District Muzaffarnagar. 4. In the above mentioned trial, charges were framed against the accused persons on 23.12.2011 and since then the matter is being fixed for prosecution evidence. 5. By way of the present petition, applicant prays for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid case. 6. From perusal of the record and explanation sent by the Court concerned, it appears that the Presiding Officer is trying to conclude the sessions trial expeditiously but for some reasons or the other it is still pending. 7. As a matter of fact, the Sessions Trial is more than 10 years old and the prosecution evidence is still not completed despite efforts of the Presiding Officer/Court concerned. 7. As a matter of fact, the Sessions Trial is more than 10 years old and the prosecution evidence is still not completed despite efforts of the Presiding Officer/Court concerned. However, the Court should very well understand the pathetic condition of the poor informant also, who remains a mere spectator of such judicial proceedings and nothing remains in his hands, Indubitably, speedy trial is a fundamental right not only of an accused but also a valuable right of the victim/informant of a case. If criminal proceedings pending in a Court astounding on with tardy pace which causes unreasonable delay and results in grave prejudice to the victim, the Court must realize its role as the protector of the right of the litigant. While considering the question of delay, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State through C.B.I. v. Dr. Narayan Waman Nerukar, AIR 2002 SC 2977 , that ''Court has a duty to see whether the prolongation was on account of any delaying tactics adopted by the accused and other relevant aspects which contributed to the delay. Number of witnesses examined, volume of documents likely to be exhibited, nature and complexity of the offence which is under investigation or adjudication are some of the relevant factors.'' 8. At the same time this Court cannot shut its eyes from the fact that so many compelling circumstances occur during the proceedings of any trial causing hindrances therein and play a role of obstacles into the proceedings of any trial viz. strike of lawyers, adjournment by parties, loss of record, leave of the staff, power cut or any other infrastructural or urgent problem. Therefore, this Court strictly directs the trial Court to make all possible endeavor to conclude the trial of the case within six months from the date of receiving of the certified copy of order of this Court and also keeping in view the mandatory provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. 9. It is also made clear that the Court/Presiding Officer is not the only stake holder in the trial and disposal of a criminal case, hence, besides the P.O. concerned, all the stake holders i.e. police and execution authorities, advocates, parties to the case, staff are also made bound by this order and it will be their responsibility also to assist the Court in every manner for the expeditious disposal of this case. 10. 10. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.