MANISH JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner facing trial in C.C. No. 20647 of 2010 on the file of II Additional C.M.M., Bangalore for the offences punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has sought for quashing the prosecution launched against him principally on the ground of delay in trial of the case and failure on the part of the Trial Court to record the evidence of the material witnesses present before the Court and in securing the presence of other witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the certified copy of the order sheet.

(2.) No doubt, perusal of the order sheet indicates that the charges were framed on 24-11-2011 and the plea of the accused was recorded. Since, the petitioner pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against him, the learned Magistrate fixed the trial of the case to 9-12-2011 and ordered issue of summons to C.Ws. 1 to 5. However, the summons issued to the witnesses were not served nor the witnesses were present. Subsequently, on several dates the Trial Court ordered issue of NBW against the witnesses. It appears on 30-4-2012 C.W. 1 who is arrayed as respondent 2 to this petitioner and another witness C.W. 4 were present before the Court. However, they were ordered to be bound over and case was adjourned to 19-5-2012. On subsequent dates, none of the witnesses appeared before the Court inspite of issue of NBW. The NBWs issued against the witnesses have not been executed, nor their presence could be secured before the Court. Thus, perusal of the order sheet, no doubt, indicates that there has been delay in completing the trial of the case. However, the said delay was on account of the absence of the witnesses on several dates. Though two of the witnesses were present on one day before the Court, it appears at the request of the witnesses, the recording of their evidence was adjourned by directing them to bound over. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is substance in the contention of the petitioner that there has been delay in completing the trial of the case. However, on that ground the prosecution cannot be quashed. It is for the Trial Court to have recourse to coercive process against the witnesses to secure their presence and if inspite of such process, the presence of the witnesses could not be secured, it is for the Trial Court to proceed further in accordance with law. Nevertheless, the Trial Court is required to complete the trial expeditiously. In this view of the matter, I find no ground to entertain this petition. However a direction is required to be issued to the learned Trial Judge to complete the trial expeditiously. In view of the above, petition is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to complete the trial expeditiously within six months from today.