Allahabad High Court
Nyay Prakash vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 September, 2016
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27770 of 2016
Applicant :- Nyay Prakash
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.
Present Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for opposite party no.-1, Sri P. Dixit, learned counsel for opposite party no.-2. Heard them and perused the records.
From perusal of the record, it is found that charges were framed against opposite party no.-2 on 5.5.2012. Thereafter dates in trial of complaint case no. 85 of 2004 (Nyay Prakash Vs. Aditya) were fixed for prosecution of evidences. From perusal of certified copy of the orders, it is found that applicant/ complainant had been not only negligent, but had been apparently and deliberately delayed the proceedings of trial and had not adduced the evidences. Then on 28.10.2015, trial court had passed order mentioning 21 adjournments sought by complainant/applicant and after observing that the next date, i.e., 19.11.2015 would be last opportunity for adducing evidence; but inspite of such directions and warning, no evidence was adduced. Then again trial court had warned for last opportunity of evidence on 1.3.2016. After it, on next date, the complainant had examined himself as PW-1, but after it on several dates he had not adduced any other evidence. On 16.08.2016 applicant/complainant was absent, then trial court had closed the opportunity of complainant's evidence and fixed the date for recording the statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC. On this next date, the applicant/ complainant's side has filed application under Section 75-Kha in court for recalling the order dated 16.8.2016. This application was considered on merit and was rejected on 31.08.2016 by trial court. After it, the date for recording statement of accused under section 313 CrPC was again fixed by trial curt. The proceedings of trial court along with order of closure of complainant's evidence has been challenged through present application u/s 482 CrPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that order dated 16.08.2016 of trial court should be quashed so that complainant may get last opportunity to adduce all his evidences. His further submission is that in future no adjournment will be sought by complainant for adducing evidences.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.-2 contended that more than sufficient time had already been afforded to complainant's side; and thereafter in his absence, trial court had closed the opportunity for adducing evidence on 16.8.2016. There is no illegality or impropriety in the aforesaid order and the proceedings carried out by trial court.
From perusal of the record, it is found that apparently applicant/ complainant has been misusing the process of court for getting the case adjourned again and again without adducing evidence, for which there appears no satisfactory explanation given; and when on 28.10.2015 the trial court had counted 21 adjournments on behalf of complainant and fixed the date as last opportunity of evidences, then said again this order was also not complied with. Thereafter again warning was given to applicant for adducing evidences and when he was again warned and afforded last opportunity on 1.3.2016, then he had examined only himself and no other witness was examined thereafter on several dates. In these circumstances, there appears no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order dated 16.08.2016 passed by trial court or proceedings carried out by the trial court.
There has been no satisfactory explanation on the part of applicant/complainant for not adducing all his evidences for such long time. The principle of opportunity of hearing and the principle of natural justice is not only available to applicant/ complainant but is also available to accused who has right to expect expeditious justice. Unnecessary delay in proceedings of criminal trial without satisfactory explanation amounts to denial of legal rights available to accused, when he is being unnecessarily dragged in criminal procedings. In present matter the accused had been harassed for years without any satisfactory explanation in this case that was initiated in the year 2004. There is no reason to accept the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant/complainant and interfere in the impugned order dated 16.8.2016 or proceedings carried out by trial court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. In this matter trial court should make all attempt to conclude the trial expeditiously for reaching to its logical end.
In view of above, this application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.9.2016
Sanjeev
