IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7929/2018 BETWEEN:
LEENA ELIZABETH NIVAS AGED 35 YEARS WIFE OF NIVAS SAINATH AND DAUGHTER OF JACOB THOMAS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.77, 11TH CROSS INDIRANAGAR 1ST STAGE BANGALORE – 560 038.
(BY SRI. AZHAR MEER., ADVOCATE) AND:
NIVAS SAINATH AGED 35 YEARS SON OF LATE R. SAINATH PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.2135, 16TH ‘B’ MAIN HAL IIND STAGE INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 008.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO THE HON'BLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-I MAYO HALL, BANGALORE TO COMPLETE THE TRIAL IN CRL.MISC.NO.183/2014 WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME THAT MAY BE DETERMINED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Notice to respondent No.2 stands dispensed with since no order adverse to the interest of respondent No.2 is being passed.
2. The only prayer sought for in the present petition is for a direction to Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, to conclude the trial in Crl.Misc.No.183/2014 within a reasonable time as may be determined by this Court.
3. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would disclose that cross-examination of P.W.1 was not conducted despite several opportunities came to be granted and as such trial Court recorded there was no cross-examination and had posted the matter for respondent’s evidence way back on 08.08.2016. Subsequently, respondent herein has filed two applications i.e., for recall of P.W.1 and to tender his evidence by way of examination-in-chief. Despite petitioner herein stating that she has no objection to allow the said application, matter seems to have been adjourned from time-to-time and it is at the stage of cross-examination of P.W.1 and it is said to have been listed for cross-examination of P.W.1 on 04.06.2019.
4. In the light of aforestated facts, it would clearly indicate that matter before learned trial Judge is pending for the last four (4) years without there being any substantial reasons and it is needless to remind that learned trial Judge shall keep in mind the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005, which mandates proceedings ought to be concluded expeditiously. Further Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, would also disclose that proceedings should be concluded within a period of 60 days. As such it is just and necessary in the interest of justice and also in the interest of parties to direct the learned trial Judge to dispose of the said petition expeditiously. Hence, criminal petition stands disposed of by directing the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I adjudicating Crl.Misc.No.183/2014 to dispose of said proceedings expeditiously at any rate within two (2) weeks from the next date of hearing subject to both parties cooperating with trial Court. If parties seek for any adjournment without justifiable reason, trial Court would be at liberty to regulate its proceedings by imposing costs if necessary on such of those parties who seek for adjournment.
SD/-
JUDGE DR