THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.692 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/defacto complainant to quash the order dt.21.11.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1921 of 2022 in C.C.No.378 of 2016 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by respondents 2 & 3 herein/A2 & A3 for splitting the aforesaid CC for separation of trial of A2 & A3 from out of A1 & A4.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record.
3. The present Criminal Petition is filed by the defacto complainant who had filed a complaint for the offences under section 498(A), 420, 406, 506, 379 of the Indian Penal Code r/w.120-B and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act., 2 against the son-in-law who is Accused No.1. The respondents 2 and 3 herein who are A2 and A3, are parents-in-law and Accused No.4 is the daughter.
4. The case was filed by the Police and registered as C.C.No.378 of 2016 and pending before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.
5. On 21.11.2022, the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has split up the case against A2 and A3 by observing at para-7 of the impugned order which reads as follows;
"The petitioners/A2 and A3 herein are aged above 60 years. Since from filing charge sheet, A1, A4 NBWs are pending and the matter is pertaining to 2016 year and coming for furnishing copies since from 2016 onwards and from 03.01.2017 onwards on each adjournment the petitioner/A2, A3 regularly appearing before this Court and the respondent No.1 till date unexecuted the NBWs against A1 and A4. Therefore, it is just and necessary to split up the case against the petitioners who are regularly appearing before Court even though they are aged persons."
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defacto complainant would submit that the Magistrate had 3 committed error in splitting up the case against respondents 2 and 3 herein/A2 and A3. The Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure of proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. and without following the said procedure, the case was split up and being tried against these respondents 2 and 3.
7. He relied on the Judgment of High Court of Delhi in Jitender Narottam Das Mehrotra v. State and others1 wherein the High Court while dealing with a dishonor of cheque, found that the trial Court cannot split the trial in respect of persons who are appearing before the Court. The Delhi High Court held that splitting up of trial against some of the accused and simultaneously continuing with the proceedings of procuring the presence of remaining accused is neither legally permissible nor congenial to the trial as it has to be intermittently subjected to fits and starts and the possibility of de novo trial, if even one of the accused appears at the fag end cannot be ruled out.
1 2003 (71) DRJ 43 4
8. In the present case, the case was registered on the basis of the complaint for the offences punishable under Section 498 (A), 420, 406, 506, 379 of the Indian Penal Code r/w.120-B and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondents herein are the parents-in-law who are aged about 66 and 68 years. They have been going around the Court since 2015 and the learned Magistrate having found that the petitioners who are aged and have been regularly appearing before the Court and since the Non-bailable warrants remained unexecuted against A1 and A4, split up the case.
9. Admittedly, the respondents 2 and 3 herein/A2 & A3 have been going around since 2015. The procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate in splitting up the case and trying the case against respondents 2 and 3 herein who are parents- in-law cannot be found fault with, at this juncture. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that section 317(2) of Cr.P.C. has no application. 5
10. When the co-accused do not appear in a case such as the present case over a period of nearly 8 years, the respondents/accused cannot be made to go around the courts indefinitely. The accused have a right of speedy trial and only for the reason of other accused not appearing, the trial cannot go on indefinitely. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate in splitting up the case against Accused Nos.2 and 3 who are respondents 2 and 3 herein.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 24.02.2023 tk 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.692 of 2023 Dt.24.02.2023 tk