Munim Singh Parihar @ Parashuram vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court directed the Special Judge, Gangster Act, Jhansi, to make all endeavors to decide GST No. 48 of 2006 expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The direction stipulated that undue adjournments should not be permitted for either side, provided there is no legal impediment. The Court did not delve into the merits of the underlying criminal case but focused on ensuring its speedy conclusion. The primary reasoning was to address the prolonged pendency of the trial. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts can direct subordinate courts to expedite trials when there is undue delay, subject to legal constraints and without permitting dilatory tactics.

Facts

This application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. was filed by Munim Singh Parihar @ Parashuram seeking a direction to the Special Judge, Gangster Act, Jhansi, to expeditiously decide GST No. 48 of 2006. This case, State vs. Munim @ Parashuram and others, stems from Case Crime no. 302 of 2005, involving charges under Sections 147, 148, 307 IPC, and Section 2/3 Gangster Act, P.S. Samthar, District Jhansi. The charge-sheet was filed on July 7, 2006, and cognizance was taken. The case is currently fixed for evidence/cross-examination of PW-2. The applicant's counsel highlighted that while delay in framing charges occurred, it was partly due to the accused's failure to appear on the scheduled date, with charges ultimately framed on July 13, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the Special Judge, Gangster Act, Jhansi, to expedite the proceedings in GST No. 48 of 2006 (State vs. Munim @ Parashuram and others) under Sections 147, 148, 307 IPC, and Section 2/3 Gangster Act, considering the significant delay since the charge-sheet filing in 2006. Petitioner's Contention: The applicant argued that the trial has been pending for an inordinate period since the charge-sheet was filed on July 7, 2006. While acknowledging some delay in framing charges was attributable to the accused's non-appearance, the applicant stressed the need for expeditious disposal to ensure timely justice. They sought a direction for the court below to decide the case within a stipulated timeframe. Revenue/State's Contention: The learned A.G.A. for the State was heard. No specific arguments or contentions were recorded for the State in the judgment.