Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1702

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
Naresh Kumar Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Villivalam Raghavchari Sridhar & Anr. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10334 of 2022 (Arising Out of Impugned Final Judgment and Order Dated 17-02-2022 in C.R.R. No. 1995 of 2018 Passed by the High Court at Calcutta)
Decided On : 07-11-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Advocate, Mr. Anjan Datta, Advocate, Mr. Syed N. A., Advocate, Mr. Binod Kumar Behera, Advocate, Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Garima G. Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. Rajasmit Mondal, Advocate, Mr. Ujjwal Bhardwaj, Advocate, Ms. Ritu Rajkumari, Advocate, Mr. Robin Khokhar, Advocate, For the Appellant.

The court's discretion under Article 136 and the importance of expeditious trial completion

Headnote:
Article 136 - Special Leave Petition - Court declines to interfere with the given facts of the case
Fact of the Case:

The court declined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India due to the given facts of the case.
Finding of the Court:

The special leave petition was dismissed, but the court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial on an almost day-to-day basis and ensure completion within six months.
Issues: Interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, delay in trial completion
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that interference under Article 136 was not warranted in the given facts of the case, but emphasized the need for expeditious trial completion.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was dismissed, and the Trial Court was directed to ensure trial completion within six months.

ORDER

1. On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in the given facts of the case.

2. The special leave petition is dismissed.

3. However, we must note with some consideration that the FIR was registered in the year 1990 and 32 years hence the trial is not complete.

4. We direct the Trial Court to proceed with the trial on almost day to day basis and ensure that the trial is completed within a maximum period of six months from the date of communication of the this order.

5. Pending applications stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document