Raj Kumar Tayal vs State of Haryana and others

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) with a prayer to issue an appropriate directions to the trial Court to dispose of the trial in a case bearing No. CHI/721/2017 titled as 'State of Haryana Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.' arising out of FIR No.218, dated 21.04.2017 registered under Sections 120-B-IPC (61(2)BNS), 406 IPC (316(2)BNS), 420 IPC (318(4) BNS) registered at Police Station: City Palwal, District Palwal (Annexure P-1), in a time bound manner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR in the present case was registered on 21.04.2017 and after completion of investigation, challan was presented before the Court of Area Magistrate on 01.07.2017. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the accused on 29.01.2018. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has relied upon 13 witnesses in the present case and in the last about 08 years, only 10 witnesses have been examined by the trial Court. He further submits that the accused in the present case have made efforts to ensure that the trial gets delayed before the trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that even various applications were moved by the accused in the present case and every attempt has been made to delay the trial before the trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that the existing pace of trial runs directly counter to the mandatory statutory provisions laid down in Section 346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In fact, Section 346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 clearly mandates that in every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible and even the prosecution evidence should be completed at the earliest. However, in the present case, the trial is still pending after a period of 09 years of registration of the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of “Hussainara Khatoon (IV) Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar”, (1980) 1 SCC 81 and “State of Punjab Vs. Shinder Pal Kaur”, (2019) 13 SCC 560.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

At this stage, since no adverse order is being passed against respondents No.2 and 3, consequently, just to save the time and expenses of respondents No.2 and 3, no notice has been isued to respondents No.2 and 3 in the present case.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel, I find that the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is perfectly justified. From the record of trial Court, it is apparent that the accused in the present case have made every effort to delay the trial before the trial Court and even the official witnesses have not appeared before the trial Court. Due to this, the trial has been unreasonably delayed by the trial Court, which directly violates the statutory mandate of Section 346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It also amounts to denial of right to speedy trial to the present petitioner, which has been guranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial in the present case within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The present petition stands disposed of with the above terms.