Constitutional courts should not issue time-bound disposal directions to trial courts unless compelling or exceptional circumstances exist, as docket management and prioritization should remain within the discretion of the trial court.

JUDGMENT

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.101 of 2023 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the said court for the disposal of the aforesaid case within a time frame fixed by this Court. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. In the decision Allahabad High Court Bar Association v. State of U.P. [2024 (6) SCC 267], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned the constitutional courts from passing orders for time bound disposal of the cases pending before the courts below unless there are compelling reasons for the same. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are extracted hereunder:

“32. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time - bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out - of - turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.

33. There is another important reason for adopting the said approach. Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceedings in the constitutional Courts. Those litigants who can afford to approach the constitutional Courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing out - of - turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The Courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day - to - day functioning of the other Courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time frame. In a sense, no Court of law is inferior to the other. This Court is not superior to the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the concerned Courts unless there are very extraordinary circumstances.” .

4. In the present petition, it is contended that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. As regards the reason for speedy disposal, it appears from the averments in this petition that the physical incapacity suffered by the 2^nd petitioner after a road accident, is the reason stated for expeditious disposal of the case.

5. Having regard to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it may not be proper for this Court to direct the learned Magistrate to dispose of the aforesaid case within a prescribed time frame. However, the learned Magistrate may take into account the physical incapacity, if any, suffered by the 2^nd petitioner, and pass appropriate orders granting exemption from personal appearance to the above said petitioner, except for those occasions where his presence is inevitable for the progress of the trial.

With the above observations, the original petition stands closed.