Trial courts must expedite long-pending criminal proceedings without unnecessary adjournments, subject to docket constraints.

The petitioner, the de facto complainant, alleged that she was married to Sukhamay Mondal on 8 December 2004 and was subjected to cruelty and dowry-related demands by her husband and in-laws.

She alleged that she was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home on 6 December 2008 without her streedhan articles.

On the basis of her complaint, Nandakumar P.S. Case No. 183 dated 6 December 2008 was registered under Sections 498A and 423 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in 2009 against four accused persons, with eleven prosecution witnesses cited; however, only two witnesses had been examined when the revision was filed.

The proceeding, registered as G.R. Case No. 1285 of 2008, remained pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur.

The petitioner therefore invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking expeditious disposal of the trial.

Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to direct expeditious disposal of a criminal proceeding pending since 2008.

Whether such a direction could be issued in the absence of appearance by the opposite party, where the relief sought was procedural and would not prejudice any party.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of any court.

The Court also proceeded on the principle that, where a criminal proceeding has remained pending for an inordinate period and a direction for expeditious disposal is innocuous and causes no prejudice to the parties, the High Court may direct the trial court to proceed without unnecessary adjournments, while having regard to its docket and ensuring a lawful conclusion.

The underlying criminal allegations concerned Sections 498A and 423 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Court noted that the case had been pending since 2008, that the charge-sheet had been filed in 2009, and that only two of the eleven prosecution witnesses had been examined.

In these circumstances, the petitioner’s request was limited to expediting the trial and did not seek adjudication on the merits or any order prejudicial to the accused.

The Court characterized the relief as “simple and innocuous” and held that the absence of the opposite party did not prevent consideration of the prayer because no party would suffer prejudice from an expeditious trial.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the Court therefore considered it appropriate to issue a time-related procedural direction to the trial court.

The High Court disposed of CRR 2479 of 2023 by directing the trial court to dispose of G.R. Case No. 1285 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments, while considering the court’s docket and arriving at a logical conclusion, if the case had not already been disposed of.

Connected applications, if any, were also disposed of, and any interim order was vacated.

A copy of the order was directed to be communicated to the trial court for information and necessary steps.