Namita Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 503 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.317 of 2023


Namita Gupta                                            ....Petitioner

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                 ....Respondent

Present:-
            Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
            Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. for the State.

                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed seeking

directions to the court below that the proceedings of Case

No.1546 of 2015, State Vs. Gurdayal Singh and Others, for

the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 354, 504 and

506 IPC, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar ("the

case"), may be expedited within a period of three months from

the passing of order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that in this matter, the charge sheet was received way back in

the year 2015, but the private respondents have been

adopting one or other methods to delay the conclusion of the

trial.

4. Generally, this Court should refrain to consider

such prayers because cases are prioritised based on the

pendency of the cases in a particular court and, thereafter,

the pendency of cases pertaining to prioritise categories

namely- Old age, PC Act, etc. But, perusal of the record, in

the instant case, reveals that, in fact, after the chargesheet

having been filed on 16.05.2015, the charges could be framed

on 04.03.2020. Largely, it was delayed by the private

respondents. Not only this, thereafter also, the private

respondents sought adjournments even when the witnesses

were present. It so happened on 12.01.2022. On 02.05.2022,

also, though the witnesses were present, but adjournment

application was moved, which was not allowed and the

defence was given time to cross-examine the witnesses, but it

was not done by the defence. .

5. There may be delay in conclusion of the trial,

but in the instant case, it appears that the trial has

unnecessarily been prolonged, even at the stage of charge,

and, thereafter. The court refrains to indicate the exact

reasons and the party responsible for it.

6. Be it as it may, the state of affairs, as depicted in

the instant case, is not encouraging. The Court requests the

court below to proceed with the trial on day to day basis, until

concluded.

7. With the above observation, the petition stands

disposed of.

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court

concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.02.2023 Ravi Bisht