Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17155 of 2019 Applicant :- Dalvir Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 15 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Ronak Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead Superintendent of Police, Kasganj as opposite party no.17, during the course of the day.
2. Heard Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicant/informant seeking a direction that the proceedings in Session Trial No. 879 of 2006 (State Vs. Tejveer @ Guddu & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2006, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Quarsi, District- Aligarh, pending before the District & Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar be decided in a time bound manner. The applicant claims to be compelled to approach this Court despite numerous directions issued by this Court and the Supreme Court on earlier occasions. In view of such directions, the matter does require serious proportions as the direction earlier issued by this Court and the Supreme Court have practically remained unfulfilled. Brief reference to those directions is to be made in the present order.
4. Earlier, one of the accused persons Tejveer Singh @ Guddu approached this Court by means of a Transfer Application (Criminal) No.548 of 2008, seeking transfer of the trial from the court of Special Judge, Aligarh. That application was allowed by order dated 20.11.2009 and the trial was transferred to the court of District & Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar. By that order, specific direction was issued to conclude the trial proceedings, preferably within a period of six months.
5. Thereafter, another Transfer Application (Criminal) No.103 of 2010 was filed by another accused person namely Pradeep. It was dismissed by order dated 05.04.2010.
6. Despite, earlier transfer application filed by Tejveer Singh @ Guddu, which was allowed, he approached this Court again by means of Transfer Application (Criminal) No.306 of 2010. It was dismissed by order dated 09.09.2010. The direction issued in the earlier order dated 05.04.2010 to conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months was reiterated.
7. Thereafter, the applicant approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482 No.5703 of 2011. It was decided by order dated 18.05.2011 with a positive direction to the learned trial court to conclude the proceedings, within a period of four months.
8. Thereafter, another accused person Robi @ Sanju approached this Court by means of Transfer Application (Criminal) No.153 of 2011. The same was dismissed in default vide order dated 23.05.2013. The Court took note of the fact and issued further direction to the learned court below to proceed with the case on day-to-day basis and not to sit tight over the matter and discard the dilatory tactics of either party and to conclude the trial proceedings, preferably within a period of six months.
9. Yet, another Transfer Application (Criminal) No.396 of 2015 was filed by another accused person namely Upendra @ Chhotu. It was dismissed by order dated 12.08.2015.
10. At the same time, Tejveer Singh @ Guddu was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2008. The same was challenged before the Supreme Court by means of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1530 of 2009. It was practically dismissed by order dated 19.07.2013 with the following observations:
"However, in the facts of the case, we request the learned trial court to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the court concerned. In case the prosecution feel that the respondents have abused the privilege of bail, it is always open to them to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief."
11. Since the trial was not concluded within the time frame provided by the Supreme Court, it appears that the applicant approached that Court by means of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1530 of 2009. By order dated 27.02.2015, it was observed as below:
"One last opportunity is granted to the District and Sessions Judge, Civil and Sessions Court, District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh to conclude the trial within a further period of six months, failing which he shall enter appearance in this Court and tender an explanation why the proceedings could not be completed within the time stipulated hereinabove."
12. In such background of specific directions issued by this Court and the Supreme Court, the trial proceedings should have been concluded but it is sad to know that the same have remained pending till date.
13. Learned counsel for the applicant has further informed that the learned trial court closed the evidence of two key prosecution witness. The applicant then approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482 No.23360 of 2015, which was allowed by order dated 11.08.2015 with a direction that the evidence of those witnesses be recorded within ten days. This order became subject matter of challenge by the accused person namely Upendra @ Chhotu who filed Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.7195 of 2015, wherein by order dated 04.09.2015, the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings. However, by order dated 16.10.2015, it set aside the order dated 11.08.2015. The learned trial court was also directed to give effect to the earlier directions.
14. Certain other proceedings appear to have taken place, wherein the accused persons approached this Court in Criminal Revision No.3266 of 2015 against the order passed by the learned trial court discharging 36 prosecution witnesses. The same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2015. Then, by order dated 30.05.2016, this Court has allowed Application U/S 482 No.17328 of 2016 filed by the accused Tejveer @ Guddu against the order dated 03.09.2015 and permitted him to adduce defence evidence.
15. It is then stated, at present, evidence has been concluded and the matter is ripe for hearing, however, the defence has been delaying the proceedings on one pretext or the other. Referring to the order sheet dated 10.08.2016, it has been stated that the hearing commenced on that date and the prosecution started leading the arguments, which fact is clearly recorded in the order sheet. However, it is also on record that certain other applications continued to be filed by the parties mainly the defence. Thus, an application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned trial court by order dated 15.06.2017, which gave rise to Application U/S 482 No.20471 of 2017, the same was disposed of by order dated 07.07.2017, allowing the accused Sonu Gautam to file another proper application. Then, the applicant approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482 No.30879 of 2017 against the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by learned trial court, by which, it had summoned the constable Satyaveer Singh as a witness. The same was disposed of by order dated 30.10.2017.
16. Thereafter, another Application U/S 482 No.31370 of 2018 by another accused person Vishal Gaud and another against the order dated 02.08.2018 passed by the learned trial court, seeking to cross examine the defence witness constable Satyaveer Singh. That application was dismissed by order dated 12.09.2018.
17. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since then, seven months have passed and the trial has still remained pending. Thereafter, the matter has been listed
08.04.2019 and 15.04.2019 when the matter has now adjourned for 03.05.2019. The order sheet entries would reveal that the matter has remained pending for absence of one or other party who did not appear or moved an application for exemption or one or the other accused persons could not be produced by the jail authorities and the police.
18. As has been noted above, the specific timelines issued by this Court and the Supreme Court have been completely ignored. The Court deliberately does not wish to reach a conclusion, as to the exact reasons for the same at this stage as that may lead to an embarrassing conclusion of contempt committed by the learned trial court. Also, in that regard, it is noted that delay is not entirely attributable to the Court but also to account of subsequent application and proceedings both before this Court and the Supreme Court wherein, certain interim orders were also granted.
19. Be that as it may, at present, since 16.08.2018, the proceedings appear to be stagnant inasmuch as neither there is any application that may have been filed by the prosecution or the defence that has kept the proceedings pending nor has any effective proceeding been held over a long period of eight months. The matter cannot be allowed to rest or drift on its own endlessly.
20. Learned counsel for the applicant states that except opposite party no.15, all the accused persons namely Tejveer Singh @ Guddu, Sonu Gautam, Sunil @ Dau, Sushil Pandit @ Gatua, Sharif, Lalu Khan, Amit Gupta @ Ajeet, Vishal Gaur, Upendra, Pradeep @ Annu Baghel, Prem Singh Kushwaha, Bhupendra Gupta, Pradeep & Sonu @ Surendra (opposite party nos.2 to 16) have been enlarged on bail while Robi @ Sanjeev is lying lodged at Kasganj jail.
21. Accordingly, it is directed that the learned court below shall ensure that all the opposite parties are present on the next date fixed i.e. 03.05.2019 before the court, failing which, the opposite parties who are already on bail may be exposed to proceedings for cancellation of their bail. Also, opposite party no.17 shall ensure that opposite party no.15 shall necessarily be produced before the learned court below on the next date fixed, failing which, the said opposite party no.17 shall show cause before this Court why specific order has not been complied with.
22. Thus, the learned trial court shall make best efforts to ensure to comply with the earlier directions issued by this Court and the Supreme Court in letter and spirit such that the hearing is concluded as expeditiously as possible, on a day-to-day basis and the judgement pronounced not later than four months from today.
23. List this case on 29.05.2019 in top ten cases, by which date, it shall open to the applicant to bring on record further orders passed by the learned court below as may reflect true stage of proceedings. Also, learned counsel for the applicant may file a certified copy of this order within a period of one week from today.
24. Let a copy of this order be supplied to learned AGA for compliance, within the next 24 hours.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Abhilash