Revisional application filed by accused seeking expeditious disposal of criminal proceedings pending for two years. Single-judge High Court directed trial court to frame charges within three months to serve interest of justice.
Direction to trial court to conclude proceeding expeditiously and frame charge within three months from next hearing date.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
139 10.03.2021 rkd Ct. no.32
C.R.R. 154 of 2021
In the matter of: Palash Darani & Ors.
Mr. M. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. P. P. Dasgupta, Mr. A. Deb
…for the petitioners.
Mr. M. Sur, Mr. P. Bose
…for the State.
This is an application seeking an expeditious disposal of a proceeding in which a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 419, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
A copy of the application is served upon Mr. Sur and Mr. Bose, learned advocates who are present in Court and who ordinarily appear on behalf of the State. They are requested to appear in the matter. Their engagement be regularised by the competent authority of the State.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The petitioners are the accused in this case. The petitioner no.2 is a student. Although an F.I.R was registered on 23.09.2018, the charge sheet could be submitted only in September, 2020. Although copies have been served, even the charges could not be framed till date. The proceeding has largely remained pending for no fault of the present petitioner.
Leaned counsel for the State submits that the impugned proceeding may be expedited in the interest of justice.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels
2
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the State and have perused the revision petition.
No prejudice will be caused to anyone if a direction for an expeditious disposal of the proceeding is passed in this case.
Although it does not appear that an inordinate delay was caused in concluding the proceeding, however, interest of justice requires that the proceeding be expedited.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I request the learned trial court to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and in particular, to decide the question of framing of charge at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the next date of hearing.
With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a revisional application seeking expeditious disposal of criminal proceedings should be allowed.
Whether directions for framing of charge within three months are in the interest of justice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Palash Darani & Ors.
State
Jay Sengupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
