Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by the Head of the Department (‘HOD’) of Zoology at the Hindu College, seeking directions to the Trial Court to commence the proceedings in a criminal case filed under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DPA’) as well as expeditious disposal of another complaint case pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) (‘ACJ’) / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (‘ACJM’), Moradabad, the Single Judge Bench of Vinod Diwakar, J., stated that after the considerable lapse of more than two decades since the initial FIR was registered, it was regrettable that the Trial Court had failed to commence or conduct any effective proceedings in the matter. Accordingly, the Court held that such judicial inertia demanded its urgent intervention and issued a slew of directions for the speedy disposal of the criminal cases.
After hearing the wife in person, the Court stated that it was persuaded by the facts on record, which established a persistent hardship endured by her since the solemnization of her marriage. Notwithstanding her exemplary academic qualifications and distinguished career as an Assistant Professor, officiating Principal, and HOD—positions that provided her with a respectable income and enable her to maintain a dignified standard of living—the wife’s matrimonial life had been severely disrupted by protracted litigation and continuous interference from her in-laws. The cumulative impact of these adversities rendered her personal life intolerable and unsustainable. The Court stated that, notwithstanding the considerable lapse of more than two decades since the initial FIR was registered, it was regrettable that the Trial Court had failed to commence or conduct any effective proceedings in the matter. The Court added that such judicial inertia demanded its urgent intervention to safeguard the wife’s constitutional and legal rights, ensure the proper administration of justice, and prevent any further miscarriage of justice.
This prolonged and unexplained inaction by the Trial Court constitutes not only a denial of timely justice but also a serious erosion of the rule of law and a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial.” Upon perusal of the Court orders, the Court noted that evidently, the wife was not heard on any occasion, neither when the Court granted an interim stay on the arrest of accused persons nor when the Trial Court proceedings were stayed. Furthermore, despite both petitions being listed before the Court since 2004, no effective proceeding had taken place till the petition seeking quashing of the Trial Court proceedings was dismissed for want of prosecution because of the non-appearance of the accused persons. The Court stated that the record suggested that the trial had not progressed an inch since the filing of the charge-sheet. The accused persons were not appearing before the Trial Court by taking shelter of the order whereby their arrest was stayed. The Court further stated that, as per the Trial Court record, the accused persons had filed personal exemption applications consistently and failed to appear 35 times, thereby exacerbating the wife’s hardship and distress. “One of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence is the right to a free, fair, and expeditious trial. When this right is not upheld, litigants inevitably lose faith in the judicial process. If the trial court continues to grant exemptions to the witnesses without justifiable reason, and fails to compel their attendance, the integrity of the trial process itself may be compromised.” Considering the wife’s contention and perusal of the record, the Court held that the conduct of the accused persons, particularly their repeated non-appearance despite multiple opportunities, resulted in an undue delay in the progress of the trial. Accordingly, to ensure the effective administration of justice and the timely conclusion of the trial, the Court gave the following directions:
The accused persons in both cases shall appear before the Trial Court on the next date fixed, and thereafter on all successive dates. In the event of their failure to appear without sufficient and justifiable cause, the Trial Court shall record detailed reasons while considering any application for personal exemption. Further, the Trial Court shall maintain a record in each subsequent order indicating the number of times such personal exemption applications were filed and the grounds mentioned therein. If the accused persons fail to appear without valid cause, their bail bonds shall be forfeited, non-bailable warrants shall be issued for their arrest, and they shall be taken into custody and produced before the Trial Court to face trial without any further delay. The Trial Court shall proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis, and/or every week by recording reasons, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either party. The trial must be concluded expeditiously, keeping in view the prolonged pendency of the case for the past 21 years, and the fact that it has not yet reached even the stage of framing of a charge. Miscellaneous applications, if any, filed by the accused persons, shall be disposed of in a time-bound manner, without wasting even a day. The Joint Director (Prosecution), Moradabad, shall ensure that there is no delay, preferably not exceeding two days, in filing a reply to any miscellaneous application submitted by the accused persons. The prosecution shall also ensure that all prosecution witnesses are produced before the Court promptly, with an endeavour to produce all of them in a single session. The Trial Court shall ensure that the chief examination of prosecution witnesses is conducted on the very day of their appearance before the court. It shall further ensure that no unwarranted adjournments are granted to the accused persons for cross-examination of the witnesses. In the event of non-appearance of the defence counsel, the Trial Court may engage a counsel from the District Legal Services Authority(‘DLSA’) to conduct the cross-examination. It was the duty of the Trial Court to inform the accused persons that in case their counsel fails to appear on the given date, the legal assistance from panel counsel of the DLSA shall be forthwith provided to the accused persons.
The Senior Superintendent of Police (‘SSP’), Moradabad, shall ensure prompt and effective service of summons and execution of bailable or non-bailable warrants issued by the Trial Court against any or all accused persons. The SSP shall ensure that such processes are executed without delay or procedural lapse, and a compliance report to this effect shall be filed before the Trial Court by an officer not below the rank of Circle Officer, who shall be personally accountable for overseeing the service and execution of the process. The SSP shall also ensure that the accused persons do not attempt to extend any undue influence, threat, or coercion upon the complainant or prosecution witnesses in furtherance of any ulterior motive. Considering that one of the co-accused served as Peshkar to the District Judge for a considerable period, and his two sons are presently working as Peshkars in the same District Court, with another son of one of the accused being a practicing advocate in the District Court, the trial shall be conducted in-camera to ensure an unbiased and fair proceeding.
Given the aforesaid directions, the writ petition was allowed. However, the Court clarified that the directions issued herein were based on the peculiar and pressing facts and circumstances discussed above and shall not be treated as a precedent in other pending matters. The Court remarked that it was fully conscious of the workload faced by the Trial Courts. However, the fact remained that the FIR in this case was lodged in 2004, and the charge-sheet was submitted within the same year. Yet, to date, the trial had not progressed even to the stage of framing of charges. While certain delays may be justified under exceptional circumstances, the State cannot absolve itself from the constitutional responsibility of ensuring speedy justice to litigants — a mandate consistently reiterated by the Supreme Court and essential to the very foundation of the rule of law.
X v. State of U.P., Matter Under Article 227 No. 3880 of 2025, decided on 12-08-2025.
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
Delhi High Court: The present petition was filed by the deceased’s father under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) read with Article 227 Constitution against the impugned order dated 3-4-2017 vide which the District and Sessions Judge upheld the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’) discharging Respondents 3 to 5 under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). A Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna J., finding no merit in the petition, dismissed it stating that merely because the deceased woman was crying, cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment. The Court stated that there was nothing on record to even remotely suggest that there was any harassment of the deceased for fulfilling respondents’ demand for money.
Background: The deceased’s father made a complaint of dowry harassment and death of his daughter vide FIR under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of IPC. His daughter had married Respondent 3, as per Hindu rites and customs on 5-12-2010 and was blessed with 2 daughters aged 2.5 years and 40 days at the time of her demise. The deceased’s father submitted that he had spent about Rs 4 Lacs on her marriage, which was beyond his financial means, as he was an autorickshaw driver. He had arranged the money from his friends, relatives and family members. The deceased’s father submitted that after marriage, his daughter was continuously humiliated and tortured for not bringing sufficient dowry and demands of gold bracelet, bike and other articles were made from his daughter. He had been regularly meeting their demands. but she was continuously harassed and tortured. However, when the demands were not met, his daughter was mentally tortured because of which she died. On 3-4-2014 at about 11 pm, the deceased’s father received a call from the deceased’s father-in-law that the deceased had fallen unwell and had been taken to a hospital. The deceased’s father reached the hospital and was informed by the doctor that his daughter has died. Thus, a FIR was registered under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 of IPC. The MM vide order dated 27-6-2016 concluded that the allegations were vague and there were no specific instances or description of alleged demand for dowry or harassment. In the absence of specific allegations regarding harassment related to dowry demands or any willful conduct likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide or cause her grave injury, no case was held to be made out against Respondents 3 to 5, and they were discharged. The order of the MM was challenged and the District and Sessions Judge in the order dated 3-4-2017, concurred with the MM that there was no evidence to prima facie show the harassment of the deceased on account of dowry. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed.
resulted from cruelty by the in-laws. However, the District and Sessions Judge had already concluded that the death was due to natural causes, not dowry-related, and had accordingly discharged Respondents 3 to 5 under Section 304-B IPC. This discharge order was never challenged and hence could not be re-agitated now. The MM had rightly held that no offence under Section 498-A IPC was made out, which was upheld by the District and Sessions Judge. The Court thus found no merit in the present petition, dismissed it along with any pending applications.
Gainda Lal v. State (NCT of Delhi), CS(COMM) 832 of 2025, decided on 13-8-2025.
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
Best divorce lawyer
Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi
Top divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi
Maintenance case lawyer in karkarkardooma Court delhi
Domestic violence case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi
Transfer petition case lawyer
NRI mutual consent divorce case lawyer
Matrimonial dispute case lawyer
Lawyer for interim maintenance case in karkarkardooma Court delhi
Best divorce case lawyer in East delhi
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
+91 85957 22509
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
+91 85957 22509
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
+91 85957 22509
Best Divorce lawyer
Best divorce lawyer in karkardooma Court
Best divorce lawyer in East delhi
Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court
Best divorce lawyer in Delhi
Best divorce case lawyer in Delhi
Best divorce lawyer in new delhi
Best divorce lawyer in Tis Hazari Court central Delhi
Best divorce lawyer in saket Court South Delhi
Best divorce lawyer in dwarka Court delhi
Best divorce lawyer in rohini Court
Best divorce lawyer in North Delhi
Mutual consent divorce lawyer
Best mutual divorce lawyer
Maintenance case lawyer
Domestic violence case lawyer
Contested divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
Adultery divorce case lawyer in Delhi India
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
+91 85957 22509
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
+91 85957 22509
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
+91 85957 22509
Best Divorce lawyer
Best divorce lawyer in karkardooma Court
Best divorce lawyer in East delhi
Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court
Best divorce lawyer in Delhi
Best divorce case lawyer in Delhi
Best divorce lawyer in new delhi
Best divorce lawyer in Tis Hazari Court central Delhi
Best divorce lawyer in saket Court South Delhi
Best divorce lawyer in dwarka Court delhi
Best divorce lawyer in rohini Court
Best divorce lawyer in North Delhi
Mutual consent divorce lawyer
Best mutual divorce lawyer
Maintenance case lawyer
Domestic violence case lawyer
Contested divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
Adultery divorce case lawyer in Delhi India
Comments
Post a Comment