Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 949
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Fateh Deep Singh, J.
Gurjeet Singh @ Jeet - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. - Respondents
CWP 8546 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 20-04-2021
Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the Appellant.
The importance of seeking relief through the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. for speedy disposal of criminal trials before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Speedy Trial - Criminal Procedure - The court emphasized the importance of speedy disposal of criminal trials and directed the petitioner to seek relief through the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. instead of invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ in the nature of mandamus for the trial Court to conclude the trial in a criminal case within a time-framed period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner should have sought relief through the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. instead of invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's grievance regarding the delay in the trial proceedings and the appropriate legal remedy to address it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that parties should avail themselves of alternative remedies, such as Section 309 Cr.P.C., for speedy disposal of criminal trials before rushing to the High Court.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, directing the petitioner to first seek relief through the trial Court before approaching the High Court.
JUDGMENT
Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral). - The matter has been taken up through video-conferencing on account of outbreak of pandemic COVID-19.
2. Petitioner Gurjeet Singh @ Jeet has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by filing the instant civil writ petition seeking writ in the nature of mandamus for issuance of appropriate orders and directions to the trial Court to conclude the trial in case bearing FIR No. 04 dated 22.02.2017 under Sections 399, 402, 120-B IPC and Sections 25, 27 and 54 of Arms Act and later on added offence under Section 307 I PC registered at Police Station SSOC, Amritsar within time framed period.
3. Upon hearing Shri Kamaldip Singh Sidhu learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner is an accused and his main grouse is that he has not been speedily dealt with at the trial in the trial Court under Section 309 Cr.P.C. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the manner in which evidence in inquires and trials is to be recorded and under Section 309 Cr.P.C. ensures and provides for time framed to take the proceedings in a criminal trial from the date of filing of the charge sheet and further it casts a burden on the Court where the trial is pending to ensure its speedy disposal and not to postpone or adjourn the same without there being substantial reasons for doing so which are to be recorded in writing and, therefore, instead of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India and burdening it the petitioner ought to have laid resort to these provisions.
5. As has been held in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and others 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 392 by the Apex Court that in stead of rushing to the High Court by way of writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where a party has an alternative remedy may avail of it at the first go and in the light of the same, the present petition stands disposed off directing the petitioner to first move to the trial Court and seek the relief being prayed for in this petition.
6. Disposed off accordingly.
