Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak, J.
Vijendra Singh Sikarwar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
& Others
Miscellaneous Criminal Cases No. 24900 of 2023 and 24901
of 2023 (Gwalior); Decided on 21.9.2023
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- expeditious conclusion of trial -- more than four years elapsed -- all eye-witnesses examined -- only official and formal witnesses to be examined -- case lingering because of non-appearance of some witnesses -- held -- WhatsApp group to be created so that witnesses may be served -- officers must turn up for deposition before trial Court so that trial may be concluded at earliest -- Investigation (Police), Prosecution (District Prosecution Officer) and Adjudication (trial Court) shall ensure presence of private/official witnesses without any delay -- Director General of Police and Director, Prosecution shall seriously take a workshop and suggestion from police officers and other experts to think of creating concept of WhatsApp groups for twin purpose of summoning witnesses and protection of witnesses. (2009) 3 SCC 355 followed. [Paras 6, 30 & 35 to 38
(2) Criminal Trial -- right to speedy trial -- is fundamental right of petitioner/complainant as enshrined under Art. 21 of Constitution -- extends equally to all criminal prosecutions -- not confined to any particular category of cases -- delay not caused by informant/complainant party -- all the more important that trial be conducted in time-bound manner. (1978) 1 SCC 248, (2002) 4 SCC 578 and (1992) 1 SCC 225 followed. (1980) 1 SCC 81, (1996) 4 SCC 33, (1996) 6 SCC 775, (1998) 7 SCC 507 and II (1999) 7 SCC 604 discussed. [Para 8
(3) Criminal Trial -- right to speedy trial -- inalienable right under Art. 21 of Constitution -- applicable not only to actual proceedings in Court but also to preceding police investigations -- extends equally to all criminal prosecutions -- not confined to any particular category of cases -- in every case where right to speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed, Court has to perform balancing act upon taking into consideration all attending circumstances, and determine in each case whether right to speedy trial has been denied. [Para 24
(4) Summons -- service -- WhatsApp group of every crime number to be created -- this fact can be referred in order sheet -- when trial is over, it may be ensured that said WhatsApp group is deleted -- privacy and dignity/decency of members of WhatsApp group be maintained so that it may be available only as tool for facilitation of trial. 2018 SCC Online SC 2678 and M. Cr. C. No. 41617 of 2022 (Gwalior) referred to. [Paras 31 & 32
(5) Criminal Trial -- right to speedy trial -- scope -- right to access justice not confined to accused only -- available for complainant/informant also -- it is all pervasive. [Para 37
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & fopkj.k dh 'kh?kz lekfIr & pkj o"kZ ls vf/kd O;rhr & lHkh çR;n'khZ lk{kh ijhf{kr & dsoy 'kkldh; vkSj vkSipkfjd lkf{k;ksa dh ijh{kk gksuk gS & dqN lkf{k;ksa dh vuqilatkfr ds dkj.k çdj.k Bgjk gqvk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & o‚V~l ,si xzqi cuk;k tk, rkfd lkf{k;ksa ij rkehy gks lds & vf/kdkjhx.k fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k vfHklk{; ds fy, vo'; mifLFkr gksa rkfd fopkj.k ;Fkk'kh?kz lekIr gks & vUos"k.k ¼iqfyl½ & vfHk;kstu ¼ftyk vfHk;kstui{k vf/kdkjh½ rFkk U;k;fu.kZ;u ¼fopkj.k U;k;ky;½ çkbosV@'kkldh; lkf{k;ksa dh vfoyac mifLFkfr lqfuf'pr djsa & iqfyl egkfuns'kd rFkk funs'kd vfHk;kstu xaHkhjrk ls dk;Z'kkyk vk;ksftr djsa rFkk lkf{k;ksa dks leu djus vkSj lkf{k;ksa dh lqj{kk ds nksgjs ç;kstu fy, o‚V~l ,si xzqi cukus dh ladYiuk ij fopkj djus ds fy, iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj vU; fo'ks"kKksa ls lq>ko ysaA ¼2009½ 3 ,l lh lh 355 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 6] 30 ,oa 35 ls 38½
¼2½ nkafMd fopkj.k & 'kh?kz fopkj.k dk vf/kdkj & ;kph f'kdk;rdrkZ dk lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 21 ds v/khu ;Fkk çfr"Bkfir ewy vf/kdkj gS & lHkh nkafMd vfHk;kstuksa dks lekur% ykxw gksrk gS & çdj.kksa ds fdlh fof'k"V oxZ rd lhfer ugha & foyac bfÙkykdrkZ@f'kdk;rdrkZ i{k }kjk dkfjr ugha & vkSj Hkh egRoiw.kZ fd fopkj.k le;c) jhfr esa lapkfyr fd;k tk,A ¼1978½ 1 ,l lh lh 248] ¼2002½ 4 ,l lh lh 578 rFkk ¼1992½ 1 ,l lh lh 225 vuqlfjrA ¼1980½ 1 ,l lh lh 81] ¼1996½ 4 ,l lh lh 33] ¼1996½ 6 ,l lh lh 775] ¼1998½ 7 ,l lh lh 507 rFkk ¼1999½ 7 ,l lh lh 604 foosfprA ¼iSjk 8½
¼3½ nkafMd fopkj.k & 'kh?kz fopkj.k dk vf/kdkj & lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 21 ds v/khu vU;&vlaØkE; vf/kdkj & U;k;ky; esa okLrfod dk;Zokfg;ksa dks gh ugha] vfirq mlls iwoZ ds iqfyl vUos"k.kksa dks Hkh ykxw gksrk gS & lHkh nkafMd vfHk;kstuksa dks lekur% ykxw gksrk gS & çdj.kksa ds fdlh fof'k"V oxZ rd lhfer ugha & ml çR;sd çdj.k esa ftlesa 'kh?kz fopkj.k ds vf/kdkj dk vfrya?ku vfHkdfFkr gS- U;k;ky; dks leLr vkuq"kafxd ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj dj larqyudkjh çn'kZu djuk gksrk gS- rFkk çR;sd çdj.k esa vo/kkfjr djuk gksrk gS fd 'kh?kz fopkj.k ds vf/kdkj ls oafpr fd;k x;k gS ;k ughaA ¼iSjk 24½
¼4½ leu & rkehy & çR;sd vijk/k Øekad dk o‚V~l ,si xzqi cuk;k tk, & bl rF; dk funsZ'k vkns'k if=dk esa fd;k tk ldrk gS & fopkj.k iw.kZ gksus ij lqfuf'pr fd;k tk, fd mä o‚V~l ,si xzqi foyksfir fd;k x;k & o‚V~l ,si xzqi ds lnL;ksa dh futrk vkSj xfjek 'kkyhurk dk;e j[kh tk, rkfd og fopkj.k lqdj cukus ds lk/ku ds :i esa gh miyC/k gksaA 2018 ,l lh lh v‚uykbu ,l lh 2678 rFkk çdh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Øekad 41617 lu~ 2022 ¼Xokfky;j½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 31 ,oa 32½
¼5½ nkafMd fopkj.k & 'kh?kz fopkj.k dk vf/kdkj & O;kfIr & U;k; rd igq¡pus dk vf/kdkj dsoy vfHk;qä rd lhfer ugha & f'kdk;rdrkZ bfÙkykdrkZ dks Hkh miyC/k & ;g loZO;kih gSA ¼iSjk 37½
ORDER
With consent heard finally.
1. Regard being had to the similitude of the subject matter involved, both the cases are heard analogously and disposed of by a common order. For convenience’s sake, facts of Misc. Criminal Case No.24900 of 2023 are taken into consideration.
2. Instant petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for issuance of direction to the learned trial Court for expeditious conclusion of proceedings/criminal trial in relation to the case pending at SC DOCT No.10/2019 before learned Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), District Morena.
3. Petitioner is the informant/complainant/victim in the instant case, wherein at his behest, an FIR bearing Crime No.1364/2018 has been lodged because of the murder of his son Raghvendra, in which on the basis of his information, case was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 11, 13 of the M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter referred as “MPDVPK Act”).
4. Investigation was carried out by the police, wherein the accused persons were apprehended and arrested and after conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court so established under the MPDVPK Act, whereby after taking of the cognizance for the offences, charges were framed for offences under sections 396, 394, 302, 147, 148, 149, 120-B of IPC, sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sections 11, 13 of the MPDVPK Act.
5. Out of five named accused persons, three accused persons were juvenile and out of them, one CICL namely Lallu @ Gaurav was ordered to be tried as an adult by the Juvenile Justice Board, whose order was affirmed by the Session Court and therefore, he is being tried before the Court of V Additional Session Judge, Morena in Sessions trial No.149/2019.
6. As the date of incident was 19.12.2018 and cognizance was taken for the offence in the instant matter on 15.3.2019, wherefor more than four years have elapsed and all the eye-witnesses have been examined before the learned trial Court and only official and formal witnesses are yet to be examined and through the proceedings filed by the petitioner with the petition as well as synopsis indicate that because of non-appearance of some witnesses, case is lingered on, therefore, this petition has been preferred.
7. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that only the formal witnesses are left to depose before the learned trial Court, wherein police witnesses including Investigating Officer are not turning up for deposition on summons, therefore, the learned trial Court was compelled to issue bailable warrants and in certain situations, even arrest warrants are issued for securing the presence of police/formal witnesses.
8. Right to Speedy Trial and Access of Justice is one of the fundamental rights of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to speedy trial extends equally to all criminal prosecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases. When delay is not caused at the instance of informant/complainant party, it is all the more important the trial be conducted in a time bound manner because already more than four and half years have been spent.
9. Some of the accused persons meanwhile intimidated the witnesses for which appropriate proceedings were undertaken for cancellation of bail.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred in detail about the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution vis-a-vis speedy investigation as well as trial and referred sections 173, 197, 309, 437(6) and 468 of the Cr.P.C.. He referred judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248, Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, reported in (1980) 1 SCC 81, Abdul Rehman Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and another reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225, “Common Cause” A Registered
The right to a speedy trial is an inalienable fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, applicable to all criminal prosecutions regardless of the gravity of the offence, necess....
(1) Adjournment – Impediment in speedy trial – Legislature itself has frowned at granting adjournment on flimsy grounds – Even in cases where accused had been enlarged on bail right to a speedy trial....
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, emphasizing the need for courts to avoid undue delays and not show leniency towards accused in serious crimes.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental, and inordinate delays in criminal proceedings can lead to quashing of the prosecution.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental and must be upheld, with inordinate delays in prosecution warranting quashing of proceedings.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, requiring trial courts to avoid unnecessary adjournments and ensure timely witness examination.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, encompassing all stages of criminal proceedings and essential to prevent undue incarceration.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
