Single judge disposed of a revision application seeking expeditious disposal of criminal proceedings. Direction was issued to the trial court to conclude the proceeding and frame charges at the earliest without unnecessary adjournments.
Direction to trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously and decide framing of charge at earliest.
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.
07 08.03.2021 rkd Ct. no.32
C.R.R. 630 of 2021
In the matter of: Krishnendu Dey
….petitioner. Mr. K. Chatterjee, Mr. A. Chakraborty …for the petitioner. Mr. I. Ali, Ms. D. Sahu
…for the petitioner.
…for the State.
This is an application seeking an expeditious disposal of a proceeding in which a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 498A, 406, 504, 506 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Leave is granted to amend the cause title and expunge the name of officer-in-charge of Behala P.S. as an opposite party.
A copy of the application is served upon Mr. Ali and Ms. Sahu, 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 petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is an accused in this case. Although an F.I.R was lodged in January, 2016 and after submission of charge sheet, cognizance was also taken on 12th December, 2018, till date the proceeding could not be concluded. Long dates are being fixed in this case. On 24.11.2020, the next date for framing of charge was fixed as 01.07.2021. The proceeding has largely remained pending for no fault of the present petitioner.
2
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 appearing on behalf of the petitioner 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.
It appears that an inordinate delay was occasioned in concluding the impugned proceeding.
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 on the next date fixed for hearing or within fourteen days from such date.
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 the trial court should be directed to expedite the disposal of criminal proceedings involving alleged inordinate delay.
Whether a direction to frame charges at the earliest without unnecessary adjournments can be issued by the revisional court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Krishnendu Dey
State
Jay Sengupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
