Sontu vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—By way of this application moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant/petitioner Sontu seeks speedy trial of criminal case No. 1174 of 2012 State vs. Mangleshwar & others pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR against the applicant and four others on 14.11.2006. After completing the investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the applicant and five others. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee took cognizance of the matter on 03.07.2007 and thereafter the case was transferred to other courts. As on date the case is pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. The case is being adjourned on one pretext or the another on the request made by the respondents. Prosecution evidence has not been completed as yet. Certified copy of the complete order sheet has been filed along with the application u/s 482 Petition as annexure No. 1 to the affidavit.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that more than five years have elapsed but there is no substantial progress in the trial of the case. Speedy trial is the fundamental right of the applicant and it is therefore expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon''ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the learned trial court to decide the aforesaid case.

A perusal of the order sheet of the pending case reveals that the charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons on 03.07.2007. Cognizance of the case was taken on the same date. Accused persons were required to appear on 28.09.2007. Accused persons appeared. The charge was framed against them on 23.06.2010 and accordingly the case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 26.07.2010. Prosecution witnesses were summoned by they did not appear before the trial court and hence, bailable warrants were issued against them. Evidence of PW 1 was recorded on 17.04.2012. No further witness could be examined thereafter.

The prayer of the applicant is innocuous and therefore, the Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to respondent No. 2. Speedy trial is one of the fundamental rights of every person as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India. No party, be it the plaintiff/petitioner or the defendant/respondent, should have any objection if the direction for speedy trial is issued by any Court. Petition/application moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar is requested to decide the aforesaid case as expeditiously as possible according to law. With the observations as above, the petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage itself.