Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 2384
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Banshi Yadav S/o Shri Jagannath Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Sohan Singh Naruka S/o Shri Kan Singh Naruka – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7605 of 2024
Decided On : 03-12-2024
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Procedural Fairness
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Constitutional Courts - Powers and limitations - Constitutional Courts should generally avoid fixing timelines for lower court proceedings, delegating prioritization to individual courts absent exceptional circumstances. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a complaint pending for over six months, with the complainant’s evidence completed, but the defence evidence continually delayed by the accused.
Findings of Court:
The court noted no exceptional circumstances warranted a time limit for the complaint's resolution.
Issues: Whether a time-bound framework can be mandated for lower court proceedings by a constitutional court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that directing time-bound schedules is not customary, and prioritization is left to the discretion of trial courts unless exceptional circumstances are presented.
Result: Petition disposed of.
For the Appellant : S.L. Kumawat
For the Respondent: Vivek Choudhary
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks expedited decision for pending complaint. (Para 1) |
| 2. accused delaying evidence presentation in court. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's discretion on time-bound schedules is limited. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. petition disposed; trial court expected to expedite. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
1. By way of filing of this petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur to decide the criminal complaint expeditiously within a period of two months.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint filed by the petitioner is pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, wherein the evidence of the complainant was completed on 03.05.2024 and thereafter, the case was ordered to be listed for leading defence evidence by the accused-respondent. Counsel submits that thereafter several dates have been taken by the accused for producing the defence evidence, but till date, no evidence has been produced. Counsel submits that the accused wants to the delay the disposal of the complaint submitted by the petitioner, hence, appropriate directions be issued.
3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.
4. It is true that after completion of evidence of the complainant, the case is posted for recording the defence evidence of the accused, but the question remains for consideration of this Court is that whether any time bound schedule can be fixed by this Court in exercise of its powers contained under Section 528 of BNSS or not?
5. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi vs. State of Maharastra while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 4758/2024 has taken note of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. 2024 (6) SCC 303 , wherein it has been held that Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of the 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 wherein the cases are pending.
6. Here in the instant case, no exceptional circumstances are there for issuing any direction for time-bound schedule of the complaint pending before the Trial Court. However, it is expected from the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings of the criminal complaint pending before it.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
