IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4357 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
Choudem Subramanyam Chaitanya, Aged about 35 years, S/o Choudem Subba Rayudu, Working at Infosys Ltd., Electronics City Phase 1, Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100.
…Petitioner (By Sri. Choudem Subramanyam, Chaitanya, Petitioner-in-person) AND:
State of Karnataka, By the Police Inspector, Halasuru Gate Womens Police Station, Rep by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalroe – 560 001.
…Respondent (By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the learned Hon’ble VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru to dispose of the case in C.C.No.2614/2014 in 6 months and conclude the trial expeditiously in the interest of justice and equity as the petitioners career and liberty is at stake and etc.
This criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner who is accused no.1 in C.C.No.2614/2014 is seeking for expeditious disposal of said proceedings, which proceedings are pending before VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, on account of charge sheet having been filed against petitioner and other accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 506, r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he has filed a petition for divorce against his wife i.e. complainant on 01.07.2013 which is pending before the Family Court, Bengaluru and thereafter on 23.07.2013, complainant has filed a complaint against the petitioner, his parents, sister, on the basis of which Crime No.138/2013 came to be registered by the respondent- police against petitioner and his family members for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act. Subsequently, charge sheet came to be filed in CC No.2614/2014 and after hearing before charge, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has discharged Accused No.2 to Accused No.4 and till date there is no progress in the matter before trial Court for want of complainant’s presence.
3. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that trial Court has not made any efforts to speed up the case and it is contended that on account of exigency of work as Software Engineer he is being assigned jobs at different locations in various parts of the world and as such he would be required to attend to his duties which has not been possible on account of pendency of criminal proceedings before trial Court and petitioner is not being able to attend the assignments made over to him. Hence, contended that his job is at risk and he would not be able to find another job due to pendency of criminal proceedings. Hence, seeks for a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously within a time frame.
4. On registry being informed to ascertain the factual matrix and so also the learned HCGP on being called upon to state the present status of the proceedings pending before trial Court, it is stated that on account of prosecution being unable to secure the presence of the witnesses which they have proposed to examine, non-bailable warrants have been issued to CW1 and CW3 and matter is now listed on 22.08.2017. Though no fault can be laid at the doors of the trial Court for delay, fact remains that proceedings before the trial Court is not being expedited that too on account of absence of the prosecution witnesses. Under the guise of prosecution being unable to secure the presence of its witnesses the accused cannot be made to appear before the jurisdictional Court indefinitely and on all the dates of hearing that too at the peril of his job.
5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of considered view that in the background of the circumstances narrated above, it would be appropriate to issue a direction to the jurisdictional Court to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously and within a time frame. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R 1. Criminal Petition is hereby allowed in part 2. VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, adjudicating C.C.No.2614/2014 (Crime No.138/2013) shall dispose of and conclude the trial expeditiously at any rate within six months from the next date of hearing.
3. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE SV