Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by the Head of the Department (‘HOD’) of Zoology at the Hindu College, seeking directions to the Trial Court to commence the proceedings in a criminal case filed under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DPA’) as well as expeditious disposal of another complaint case pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) (‘ACJ’) / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (‘ACJM’), Moradabad, the Single Judge Bench of Vinod Diwakar, J., stated that after the considerable lapse of more than two decades since the initial FIR was registered, it was regrettable that the Trial Court had failed to commence or conduct any effective proceedings in the matter. Accordingly, the Court held that such judicial inertia demanded its urgent intervention and issued a slew of directions for the speedy disposal of the criminal cases.
Background
The petitioner-wife was an Associate Professor and HOD of Zoology at Hindu College, Moradabad, and her husband was a resident doctor at Dev Bhoomi Hospital, Haridwar, before their marriage in 2003. Allegedly, soon after the marriage, the wife was subjected to continuous harassment, physical abuse, and mental cruelty by her husband and other family members due to demands for additional dowry. Due to her failure to meet these demands, the wife was forcibly thrown out of her matrimonial home, leaving behind her 7-month-old twins.
Aggrieved, she lodged an FIR under Sections 498A, 504, 506, and 323 of the IPC, read with Section 3 or 4 of the DPA, against her husband and other relatives. In retaliation, the accused persons filed a writ petition, whereby the High Court directed that the accused shall not be arrested, and the wife was granted interim compensation.
Subsequently, after investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against ten accused persons. The Trial Court took cognizance of the case and issued summons to the accused persons. Aggrieved by the summoning order, the accused persons filed an application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) before the High Court, wherein the proceedings, pending before the Trial Court, were stayed till the next date of listing. Thereafter, the petition remained unlisted for five years until it was vacated in 2010.
Subsequently, the Trial Court issued bailable warrants, followed by non-bailable warrants. However, upon receiving an application from the accused persons for the cancellation of the non-bailable warrants, the Court, allegedly, recalled the non-bailable warrants by recording incorrect facts in an unreasoned order, without affording the wife an opportunity to be heard and relying solely on the version presented by the accused persons. Furthermore, the application under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed for want of prosecution in 2019.
Meanwhile, the original criminal case was transferred from Meerut to Moradabad. Since 2019, no effective proceedings have been undertaken by the Trial Court, and even a copy of the police report and other documents has not been supplied to the accused persons in the last 21 years.
The wife contended that the accused persons were influential persons who had been obstructing the fair and timely administration of justice on multiple fake and engineered grounds. Initially, for 15 years, the proceedings could not take place due to the stay order granted by the Court. Subsequently, the Trial Court showed no interest in advancing the matter. Furthermore, as per the stay order, the stay on the arrest of the accused persons was granted till the conclusion of the trial.
The wife also instituted a separate Complaint Case in 2019, which remained pending with inordinate delay, in the proceeding before the Court of ACJ/ACJM. She contended that one of the accused persons was the Peshkar of the District Judge, Moradabad, and he had misused his official position by exerting undue influence over the Trial Court proceedings. His two sons were also employed as Peshkars in the District Court, Moradabad, whereas his daughter-in-law had been serving in the Consumer Court, Moradabad. Furthermore, the son of one of the accused was an advocate who represented the accused persons in the Trial Court. She also contended that her application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, filed in the year 2010, was erroneously dismissed in 2016 because of the influence of the accused persons in the District Court.
The wife further submitted that she was facing significant challenges in her professional life, as the charge of officiating principal had been entrusted to the teachers who were well known to the accused persons and their family, who held a bias against the wife. Despite her 14 years of service, she was unfairly penalized through a wrongful demotion in seniority, with malicious intent to hinder her prospects of becoming the Head of the Department. However, her seniority was subsequently restored by orders of the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor.
In furtherance of a motivated and influenced conspiracy, the college management proceeded to suspend and terminate her in 2019. Although she was reinstated with all consequential benefits by a Division Bench of the Court, the compliance with the order had to be enforced through contempt proceedings initiated against the college management and the principal. The matter was under consideration before the Supreme Court, as the college management had challenged the orders of the High Court before the Supreme Court.
Aggrieved, the wife filed the present petition.
Analysis
After hearing the wife in person, the Court stated that it was persuaded by the facts on record, which established a persistent hardship endured by her since the solemnization of her marriage. Notwithstanding her exemplary academic qualifications and distinguished career as an Assistant Professor, officiating Principal, and HOD—positions that provided her with a respectable income and enable her to maintain a dignified standard of living—the wife’s matrimonial life had been severely disrupted by protracted litigation and continuous interference from her in-laws. The cumulative impact of these adversities rendered her personal life intolerable and unsustainable.
The Court stated that, notwithstanding the considerable lapse of more than two decades since the initial FIR was registered, it was regrettable that the Trial Court had failed to commence or conduct any effective proceedings in the matter. The Court added that such judicial inertia demanded its urgent intervention to safeguard the wife’s constitutional and legal rights, ensure the proper administration of justice, and prevent any further miscarriage of justice.
“This prolonged and unexplained inaction by the Trial Court constitutes not only a denial of timely justice but also a serious erosion of the rule of law and a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial.”
Upon perusal of the Court orders, the Court noted that evidently, the wife was not heard on any occasion, neither when the Court granted an interim stay on the arrest of accused persons nor when the Trial Court proceedings were stayed. Furthermore, despite both petitions being listed before the Court since 2004, no effective proceeding had taken place till the petition seeking quashing of the Trial Court proceedings was dismissed for want of prosecution because of the non-appearance of the accused persons.
The Court stated that the record suggested that the trial had not progressed an inch since the filing of the charge-sheet. The accused persons were not appearing before the Trial Court by taking shelter of the order whereby their arrest was stayed. The Court further stated that, as per the Trial Court record, the accused persons had filed personal exemption applications consistently and failed to appear 35 times, thereby exacerbating the wife’s hardship and distress.
“One of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence is the right to a free, fair, and expeditious trial. When this right is not upheld, litigants inevitably lose faith in the judicial process. If the trial court continues to grant exemptions to the witnesses without justifiable reason, and fails to compel their attendance, the integrity of the trial process itself may be compromised.”
Considering the wife’s contention and perusal of the record, the Court held that the conduct of the accused persons, particularly their repeated non-appearance despite multiple opportunities, resulted in an undue delay in the progress of the trial. Accordingly, to ensure the effective administration of justice and the timely conclusion of the trial, the Court gave the following directions:
-
The accused persons in both cases shall appear before the Trial Court on the next date fixed, and thereafter on all successive dates. In the event of their failure to appear without sufficient and justifiable cause, the Trial Court shall record detailed reasons while considering any application for personal exemption. Further, the Trial Court shall maintain a record in each subsequent order indicating the number of times such personal exemption applications were filed and the grounds mentioned therein. If the accused persons fail to appear without valid cause, their bail bonds shall be forfeited, non-bailable warrants shall be issued for their arrest, and they shall be taken into custody and produced before the Trial Court to face trial without any further delay.
-
The Trial Court shall proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis, and/or every week by recording reasons, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either party. The trial must be concluded expeditiously, keeping in view the prolonged pendency of the case for the past 21 years, and the fact that it has not yet reached even the stage of framing of a charge.
-
Miscellaneous applications, if any, filed by the accused persons, shall be disposed of in a time-bound manner, without wasting even a day.
-
The Joint Director (Prosecution), Moradabad, shall ensure that there is no delay, preferably not exceeding two days, in filing a reply to any miscellaneous application submitted by the accused persons. The prosecution shall also ensure that all prosecution witnesses are produced before the Court promptly, with an endeavour to produce all of them in a single session.
-
The Trial Court shall ensure that the chief examination of prosecution witnesses is conducted on the very day of their appearance before the court. It shall further ensure that no unwarranted adjournments are granted to the accused persons for cross-examination of the witnesses. In the event of non-appearance of the defence counsel, the Trial Court may engage a counsel from the District Legal Services Authority(‘DLSA’) to conduct the cross-examination. It was the duty of the Trial Court to inform the accused persons that in case their counsel fails to appear on the given date, the legal assistance from panel counsel of the DLSA shall be forthwith provided to the accused persons.
-
The Senior Superintendent of Police (‘SSP’), Moradabad, shall ensure prompt and effective service of summons and execution of bailable or non-bailable warrants issued by the Trial Court against any or all accused persons. The SSP shall ensure that such processes are executed without delay or procedural lapse, and a compliance report to this effect shall be filed before the Trial Court by an officer not below the rank of Circle Officer, who shall be personally accountable for overseeing the service and execution of the process.
-
The SSP shall also ensure that the accused persons do not attempt to extend any undue influence, threat, or coercion upon the complainant or prosecution witnesses in furtherance of any ulterior motive.
-
Considering that one of the co-accused served as Peshkar to the District Judge for a considerable period, and his two sons are presently working as Peshkars in the same District Court, with another son of one of the accused being a practicing advocate in the District Court, the trial shall be conducted in-camera to ensure an unbiased and fair proceeding.
Given the aforesaid directions, the writ petition was allowed.
However, the Court clarified that the directions issued herein were based on the peculiar and pressing facts and circumstances discussed above and shall not be treated as a precedent in other pending matters. The Court remarked that it was fully conscious of the workload faced by the Trial Courts. However, the fact remained that the FIR in this case was lodged in 2004, and the charge-sheet was submitted within the same year. Yet, to date, the trial had not progressed even to the stage of framing of charges. While certain delays may be justified under exceptional circumstances, the State cannot absolve itself from the constitutional responsibility of ensuring speedy justice to litigants — a mandate consistently reiterated by the Supreme Court and essential to the very foundation of the rule of law.
[X v. State of U.P., Matter Under Article 227 No. 3880 of 2025, decided on 12-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Petitioner in person
For the respondent: Additional Government Advocate and Krishna Dutt Tiwari
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
