Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Surya Kant, C.J. and Sandeep Sharma, J. dismissed a petition on not finding a valid or justifiable reason for not constructing the road.

In the pertinent matter a portion of the road which was yet to be constructed already vested in the State free from all encumbrance as the persons interested gifted their lands and executed formal gift deeds in their favour. Moreover, the requisite budget had also been allocated for the construction of the road. However, only because a certain section of people had raised objection who wanted the alignment of the road to be changed, the construction work was put to halt.

The Court was of the opinion that it was not a valid ground for not constructing the road and held, “Once the public path has been demarcated and land vests in the State, there can possibly be no impediment by any private person against the construction of the road”.[Devi Singh v. State of H.P., 2019 SCC OnLine HP 577, Order dated 07-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ashwini Kumar Singh, J. dismissed an application filed under Section 482 CrPC against the order of Additional Sessions Judge whereby prosecution’s application under Section 311 CrPC was dismissed.

The applicant was the informant in a case registered under Section 302 IPC. During the trial, the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 311 submitting that the Investigating Officer and the doctor concerned were not examined, and their non-examination would cause prejudice to the prosecution’s case. However, such application was dismissed by the trial court. The present petition was filed against the said order.

The High Court perused all the material available on record and found that the trial court kept open the prosecution case for about three years, but the said witnesses did not turn up. The prosecution was not diligent in pursuing the trial. Therefore, the order challenged in the petition did not suffer any fault. Right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. This apart, the Court categorically observed that the petitioner had no locus in the matter. A private person may instruct the Public Prosecutor and may submit written arguments with the permission of the court after the evidence is closed. However, a private person, even if the informant, had no locus to pursue an application under Section 311 in the court below, or to challenge the order which may have been passed on an application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 CrPC. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. [Sriram Singh v. State of Bihar, 2018 SCC OnLine Pat 1163, dated 06-07-2018]