Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rasik Sharma vs . State Of H.P. And Another on 3 January, 2024
Rasik Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and another
Cr.MMO No. 472 of 2023
.
03.01.2024 Present: Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr.
Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. R.P.Singh, Dy.A.G for respondent
No.1/State.
None for respondent No. 2.
of
Cr.MMO No. 472 of 2023
rt List after winter vacations, as prayed
for.
Cr.MP No. 1615 of 2023
In the present matter, the stay was granted
on 16.05.2023.
It was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018)
16 SCC 299 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 686 : 2018 SCC OnLine
SC 310, that in a criminal case, the stay order will lapse
after six months, if not extended by a speaking order. It
was observed:
"36. In view of the above, situation of
proceedings remaining pending for long on
account of stay needs to be remedied.
Remedy is required not only for corruption
cases but for all civil and criminal cases
where on account of stay, civil and criminal
proceedings are held up. At times,
proceedings are adjourned sine die on
account of stay. Even after stay is vacated,
intimation is not received and proceedings
are not taken up. In an attempt to remedy
this situation, we consider it appropriate to
direct that in all pending cases where stay
against proceedings of a civil or criminal
trial is operating, the same will come to an
.
end on expiry of six months from today
unless in an exceptional case by a speaking
order such stay is extended. In cases where
stay is granted in future, the same will end
on expiry of six months from the date of
such order unless similar extension is
granted by a speaking order. The speaking
order must show that the case was of such
of
exceptional nature that continuing the stay
was more important than having the trial
finalised. The trial court where order of stay
rt of civil or criminal proceedings is produced,
may fix a date not beyond six months of the
order of stay so that on expiry of period of
stay, proceedings can commence unless
order of extension of stay is produced."
This position was reiterated in Asian
Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC
592 : (2023) 1 SCC (Cri) 400 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1046,
wherein it was observed:
"2. The learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pune, by his order dated 4-12-
2019, has instead of following our judgment in
letter as well as spirit, stated that the
complainant should move an application
before the High Court to resume the trial. The
Magistrate goes on to say:"The lower court
cannot pass any order which has been stayed
by the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay with due
respect of ratio of the judgment in Asian
Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. [Asian
Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI,
(2018) 16 SCC 299 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 686] "
We must remind the Magistrates all over the
country that in our pyramidical structure
under the Constitution of India, the Supreme
Court is at the apex, and the High Courts,
though not subordinate administratively, are
certainly subordinate judicially. This kind of
orders fly in the face of para 36 of our
judgment.
3. We expect that the Magistrates all over the
country will follow our order in letter and
.
spirit. Whatever stay has been granted by any
court including the High Court automatically
expires within a period of six months, and
unless extension is granted for good reason, as
per our judgment, within the next six months,
the trial court is, on the expiry of the first
period of six months, to set a date for the trial
and go ahead with the same."
of
In view of the above, it is clarified that the
stay order dated 16.05.2023 stands vacated as per the
rt
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Application
stands disposed of.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
03rd January, 2024
(ravinder)
.
of
rt
