SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 1069

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA, J
AMAN CHAUDHARY S/O SHRI SURENDRA CHAUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLW / 2057 / 2023



Advocates:
Mr. Amit Punia, PP

Constitutional courts should refrain from imposing time-bound schedules on trial courts for case disposal, except in exceptional circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - No specific sections cited - The court addressed the issue of time-bound schedules for trial disposal in light of the constitutional court's limitations. The court emphasized that such directives should only be issued in exceptional circumstances. (Paras 3, 4)

(B) Judicial Discretion - The court reiterated that the decision to expedite trials should rest with the trial courts based on individual case circumstances, rather than being mandated by higher courts. (Para 3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a direction for the trial of Criminal Case No.166/2020 to be completed within six months, citing delays in the judicial process.

Findings of Court:
The court found that it cannot impose a timeline on the trial court for case disposal, aligning with the Supreme Court's observations regarding the impact of such orders on trial court functioning.

Issues: The main issue was whether the constitutional court could direct a trial court to complete a trial within a specific timeframe.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that imposing time-bound schedules on trial courts is inappropriate and should only occur in exceptional circumstances, as established by prior Supreme Court rulings.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Order :

1. The present criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 28.08.2023 with a prayer to issue direction to the learned Court below to dispose of the Criminal Case No.166/2020 titled as State Vs. Aman Chaudhary & others, within a period of six months.

2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal appeal No.4758/2024 arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.13366/2024 decided on 25.11.2024, has observed as under:-

"Before we part with this order, every day we notice that in several orders passed by different High Courts while rejecting the bail applications, in a routine manner, the High Courts are fixing a time-bound schedule for the conclusion of the trials. Such directions adversely affect the functioning of the Trial Courts as in many Trial Courts, there may be older cases of the same category pending. Every court has criminal cases pending which require expeditious disposal for several reasons, such as the requirement of the penal statutes, long incarceration, age of the accused, etc. Only because someone files a case in our Constitutional Courts, he cannot get out of turn hearing. Perhaps after rejecting the prayer for bail, the Courts want to give some satisfaction to the accused by fixing a time-bound schedule for trial. Such orders are difficult to implement. Such orders give a false hope to the litigants. If in a given case, in law and on facts, an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration without the trial making any progress, the Court must grant bail. Option of expediating trial is not the solution.

In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of in the case of ‘High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.’, (2024) 6 SCC 267 , this Court has held that in the ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Paragraph 47.3 reads thus:

“47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;” (underline supplied)

A direction which can be issued in exceptional circumstances is being routinely issued by High Courts without noticing the law laid down by the Constitution Bench."

4. In view of the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi (supra), no direction can be issued to the learned trial Court for completing the trial of a case within a stipulated period.

5. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition is dismissed.

6. Since the main petition has been dismissed, the stay application and all pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top