Full Judgment Text
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2150/2023
SUSHANTA KUMAR MANDAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Narender Singh, Adv.
versus
STATE THROUGH SHO PS VASANT KUNJ NORTH
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC with Mr.
Kunal Mittal and Mr. Saurabh
Tanwar, Advs. and Insp. Surender
Singh, PS R.K. Puram.
% Date of Decision:01.08.2023.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
J U D G M E N T
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 20068/2023
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 2150/2023
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following
prayer:
“1. Allow the present Writ Petition (Criminal) (Mandamus)
Under Article 226 of the constitution of India read with
section 482 of CRPC for expedite the trial and direct the Ld.
W.P.(CRL) 2150/2023 Page 1 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:14.08.2023
16:11:47
ASJ-05, Patiala House Court, District-New Delhi to conclude
the trial as soon as possible within one year in Case No. SC
213 of 2022, Titled as "State versus Somkanya Chandreyee
Dass". In FIR No. 0142 of 2022, dated 17.03.2022 at PS
Vasant Kunj North.
2. Allow the present Writ Petition (Criminal) (Mandamus)
Under Article 226 of the constitution of India read with
section 482 of CRPC and direct the Ld. ASJ-05, Patiala
House Court, District-New Delhi not to grant any further
adjournment in Case No. SC 213 of 2022, Titled as "State
versus Somkanya Chandreyee Dass". In FIR No. 0142 of
2022, dated 17.03.2022 at PS Vasant Kunj North.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court
has granted 7 adjournments despite being opposed by the complainant.
It has been submitted that the accused person was given 5
adjournments on the medical grounds.
3. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, learned ASC for the State, has opposed the
petition and submitted that the relief asked for cannot be granted by this
court exercising writ jurisdiction.
4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments have repeatedly stated
that the scope of Article 226 is limited to the inadequacy in decision
making process and unrelated to the final outcome/judgment. In Jasbir
Singh v. State of Punjab (2006) 8 SCC 294, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that, “Except giving general directions regarding any matter
concerning administration of justice, any interference in the judicial
functions of the Presiding Officer would amount to interference with
W.P.(CRL) 2150/2023 Page 2 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:14.08.2023
16:11:47
the independence of the subordinate judiciary.”
5. Moreover, the apex court in Sarvepalli Ramaiah (D) Thr. Lrs. &
Ors. V/s District Chittoor Dist. & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 500 inter-alia
held that:
“40. Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution, only on grounds of perversity, patent
illegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and
procedural irregularity. Except on these grounds administrative
decisions are not interfered with, in exercise of the extraordinary
power of judicial review.
41. In this case, the impugned decision, taken pursuant to orders of
Court, was based on some materials. It cannot be said to be
perverse, to warrant interference in exercise of the High Court's
extraordinary power of judicial review. A decision is vitiated by
irrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it is in defiance of
all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly have
taken the decision, having regard to the materials on record. The
decision in this case is not irrational.
42. A decision may sometimes be set aside and quashed under
Article 226 on the ground of illegality. This is when there is an
apparent error of law on the face of the decision, which goes to the
root of the decision and/or in other words an apparent error, but for
which the decision would have been otherwise.
43. Judicial review under Article 226 is directed, not against the
decision, but the decision-making process. Of course, a patent
illegality and/or error apparent on the face of the decision, which
goes to the root of the decision, may vitiate the decision-making
W.P.(CRL) 2150/2023 Page 3 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:14.08.2023
16:11:47
process. In this case there is no such patent illegality or apparent
error. In exercise of power under Article 226, the Court does not sit
in appeal over the decision impugned, nor does it adjudicate hotly
disputed questions of fact.”
6. In light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there must be
either perversity, patent illegality, irrationality or procedural
irregularity, in order for this court to interfere in the working of a
subordinate judiciary. However, none of these conditions exist in the
present case. Therefore, I consider that this court in the writ jurisdiction
cannot issue directions as prayed for by the petitioner.
7. The High Court cannot and should not be controlling the diary of the
learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court has to be given freedom to
post the matters in accordance with the pendency of the case. It goes
without saying that every court is to conduct the trial expeditiously as
possible. However, relief prayed for cannot be granted.
8. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
AUGUST 1, 2023/AR
W.P.(CRL) 2150/2023 Page 4 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:14.08.2023
16:11:47