Courts must expedite interlocutory applications and thereafter proceed expeditiously with long-pending criminal trials.

The petitioner-wife lodged a Zero FIR at Mahila Thana, Bhopal, against her husband Rajesh Khandelwal and other in-laws for offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 of the IPC.

The FIR was transferred to Police Station Mandideep, District Raisen, and registered as Crime No. 333/2019. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet on 09.09.2019 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Goharganj, and the case was registered as R.C.T. No. 601/2019.

The petitioner alleged that, despite the passage of several years, the proceedings remained at the preliminary stage, particularly on applications under Sections 239 and 437(5) of the Cr.P.C., owing to repeated adjournments.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the trial court was proceeding in accordance with law and that the progress of the case depended on interlocutory applications and the appearance of the parties.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, to direct the trial court to expedite proceedings in a criminal case pending since 2019.

Whether the trial court should be directed to decide the pending interlocutory applications and thereafter proceed with the trial without granting unnecessary adjournments.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice.

It also relied on the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial as an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court further considered the procedural context of the pending applications under Sections 239 and 437(5) of the Cr.P.C., concerning discharge and cancellation of bail respectively.

The governing principle was that criminal proceedings should be conducted expeditiously, while directions of the High Court must not interfere with the trial court’s independent adjudication or require impermissible day-to-day supervision.

The Court found that the charge-sheet had been filed in 2019 but that the criminal case was still pending at a preliminary stage.

The order sheets produced by the petitioner demonstrated prolonged pendency in the consideration of interlocutory applications.

This delay engaged the petitioner’s Article 21 right to speedy justice and justified a direction for reasonable expedition.

However, the Court balanced that consideration against the need to preserve the trial court’s independence and recognised that the progress of the proceedings could be affected by the conduct of the parties and other legal impediments.

Accordingly, rather than expressing any view on the merits or imposing an inflexible schedule, the Court directed the trial court to make every reasonable endeavour to decide the pending applications and thereafter proceed with the trial expeditiously, without permitting unnecessary adjournments.

The JMFC, Goharganj, District Raisen, was directed to make every endeavour to decide the pending interlocutory applications and thereafter proceed with R.C.T. No. 601/2019 expeditiously, preferably within twelve months from receipt of a certified copy of the order, subject to the cooperation of the parties and the absence of any legal impediment.

The parties were directed to extend full cooperation and not seek unnecessary adjournments.