Allowed

Rejith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2014Crl.MC/1455/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminalmisc. application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Kerala directed the lower court to dispose of a pending criminal case alleging rash and negligent driving within six months, balancing the right to speedy trial with institutional workload constraints.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate to dispose of the pending criminal case within six months from March 4, 2014.

Rejith Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/28TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1455 of 2014 (F)

¶6

-------------------------------------[C.C.NO.176/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASSMAGISTRATE COURT – I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM]

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

REJITH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. JANARDHANA KURUP, RADHIKA VEEDU, OPPOSIT TO KALLIYOOR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, PRAVACHAMBALAM, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV, SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031, (CRIME NO.2609/2011 OF CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT).

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE.P.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Prv.

¶15

CRL.M.C. NO.1455/2014-F:

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:

¶18

ANNEXURE I : COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.2609 OF 2011 OF CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.1455 of 2014

¶25

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2014.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This is an application filed by the accused in C.C.No.176/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram seeking early disposal of the case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶28

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.2609/2011 of City Traffic police station, Thiruvananthapuram which was registered on the basis of a statement given by the defacto complainant alleging commission of the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code. The incident happened in the year 2011. After investigation, Annexure 1 final report was filed in the year 2012 and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.176/2012 and it is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He is anticipating good employment. On account of the pendency of this case, he is not getting good

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.1455 of 2014 2

¶30

opportunity. He wanted to go abroad seeking employment. But the pendency of this case is a hurdle for that also. He has been falsely implicated in the case only to help a driver who had driven a lorry in a rash and negligent manner. The second accused has not appeared so far. The petitioner apprehends that if the case is not likely to be taken up in the near future, that will affect his prospectus of getting good employment. So he has no other option except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:

¶31

For these and other grounds to be raised at the time of hearing, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose C.C.No.176/2012 as expeditiously as possible within a time frame of 3 months, by allowing the petition.

¶32

Considering the nature of relief claimed in the petition,

¶33

this Court felt that the same can be disposed of after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also after getting a report from the concerned court. Accordingly, a report was called for from the concerned Presiding Officer and he had sent a report through Chief Judicial Magistrate which reads as follows:

¶34

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.1455 of 2014

¶36

C.C.No.176/2012 on the file of this court stands posted to 3.4.2014 for evidence of the prosecution. The offences alleged are u/s 279, 337, 304 A IPC and u/s 146 r/w 196 of MV Act. The above said case is not included in the list of target cases for the period 2013-2014. So summons to the witnesses were not issued. The total pendency of cases in this court is 12417 as on 28.2.2014. The target fixed for the period 2013-2014 is 1400 cases, out of which 278 cases are still pending to be disposed of. It was only considering the volume of work as mentioned above, summons to the witnesses in CC.176/2012 were not issued. More over I am under order of transfer in the General Transfer of this year. In the above said case 19 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution to prove the case. In such a circumstances I may submit that at least six months' time is required to dispose of the case.”

¶37

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶38

It is seen from the allegations in the petition that the accident in this case happened in the year 2011 and final report filed in the year 2012 and the case is pending for the last two years. The petitioner is the first accused in the case. He is a youngster seeking for employment. According to him, pendency of this case is a hurdle for him to get good employment in India and also affect his possibility of getting good employment abroad. It is true that Constitution of India provides speedy trial as a right of an accused involved in a criminal case. But

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.1455 of 2014 4

¶40

at the same time, the court cannot shut its eyes regarding the reality of lower courts facing difficulties in achieving object of the Constitution of India on account of the pendency of large number of cases before each court. Even in a court in which the case is pending more than 12,417 cases are pending. But at the same time court should be practical also while considering the request for speedy trial when it is required for the purpose of achieving the object of the Constitution as well. In the report the learned Magistrate has mentioned that if six months time is granted, he will be able to dispose of the case. So considering the circumstances mentioned in this petition and also the facts mentioned in the report, this Court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶41

The Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to dispose of C.C.No.176/2012 pending before that court and posted to 3.4.2014 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six months from 3.4.2014 on which date the case is now posted for trial.

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.1455 of 2014

¶43

¶44

With the above observations and directions this petition

¶45

is disposed of.

¶46

Office is directed to communicate this order to the

¶47

concerned court immediately.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶50

¶51

/true copy/

¶52

P.S to Judge

Rejith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rejith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santha Vs the Excise Inspector

Semil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Susheela Vs State of Kerala

Kanakan Vs State of Kerala

Premraj Vs State of Kerala

Abdulla M.K Vs Abdul Rahman