Prolonged pendency of criminal proceedings warrants High Court directions for expeditious trial under Article 21.

On 26 June 2019, the petitioner lodged a complaint alleging that respondent No. 2 had threatened him and his wife, demanded ₹1,00,000, threatened to defame and kill them, and sent obscene WhatsApp messages from different mobile numbers.

Crime No. 443/2019 was registered at Police Station Waidhan under Sections 387 and 507 of the IPC and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act. The police filed a charge-sheet on 13 August 2019, following which the case was registered as RCT No. 1219/2019 before the JMFC, Headquarters Waidhan, District Singrauli.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, alleging that despite the passage of nearly seven years, charges had not been framed and the proceedings had not substantially progressed.

Whether the prolonged pendency of RCT No. 1219/2019 without framing of charges warranted the exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Whether the Trial Court should be directed to take up the criminal case on priority and proceed with it expeditiously, while ensuring that the direction does not prejudice the merits of the case.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

It further relied on the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial as an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, applicable to both the accused and the victim.

Relying on Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, the Court reiterated that expeditious disposal of criminal proceedings is an essential component of fair procedure.

The charge-sheet had been filed in August 2019, but the order-sheets prima facie showed that the case remained pending even at the stage of framing of charges by June 2026.

Although the Court declined to make any adverse finding against the Trial Court without a detailed explanation for the delay, it held that the prolonged pendency at the threshold stage justified procedural directions under Section 528 BNSS.

Balancing the need for speedy justice with judicial independence and the accused’s right to a fair trial, the Court directed priority consideration of the case without expressing any view on the merits or influencing the Trial Court’s independent decision-making.

The parties were directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The Trial Court was expressly required to apply its independent judicial mind and remain uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.