DEVARAJAN Vs. T.ASOKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.Nos.452 of 2004 and 264 of 2006 pending on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode. The petitioner herein lodged a complaint against the first respondent alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 427, 323 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and pursuant to which Crime No.104 of 2004 was registered at Nallalam Police Station. Ext.P1 is the F.I.R. registered pursuant thereto. The petitioner had lodged another complaint before the same police station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 506(ii), 509 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code in respect of another incident against the very same accused viz., the first respondent. On its basis Crime No.147 of 2006 was registered and Ext.P2 is the F.I.R registered pursuant thereto. After completing investigation in both the aforesaid crimes final reports were laid before the competent court. Cognizance was taken on both the final reports and in respect of the former crime after taking cognizance on the final report laid therein it was taken on file as C.C.No.452 of 2004. Likewise, on taking cognizance on the final report laid in the latter crime it was taken on file as C.C.No.264 of 2006. This petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode where the aforesaid calendar cases are pending to dispose of the said calendar cases within a time limit.

(2.) ESSENTIALLY , the grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the inordinate delay in the matter of disposal of the above calendar cases. Taking note of the grievance of the petitioner this Court called for a report through the Registry from the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode. A report dated 1.4.2013 has now been received. It is reported that in C.C.No.264 of 2006 PWs 1 to 5 were examined and CW5 was given up by the prosecutor and the case now stands posted to 24.4.2013 for the examination of CW7. In fact, there are seven witnesses in that case. As regards C.C.No.452 of 2004, PWs 1 to 10 were examined and the case now stands posted to 18.4.2013 for the evidence of CW10 and CW13. Altogether there are 13 witnesses in the said case. The defacto complainant and the accused in both the aforesaid calendar cases are one and the same. It is reported that in both the cases the accused is conducting the cases by himself. He had failed to cross examine PWs 1 and 2 and they were to be recalled pursuant to an order of this Court in R.P.No.62 of 2012. It is also reported that the first respondent/accused who is conducting the cases by himself is filing petitions one after another and that is the reason for the delay occurred in the matter of disposal of the aforesaid calendar cases. In view of the order I propose to pass in this petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the first respondent.

(3.) EVIDENTLY , the above mentioned calendar cases are of the years 2004 and 2006 respectively. The report dated 1.4.2013 would reveal that the accused is conducting the cases by himself and petitions are being filed by him one after another and that ultimately stand in the way of an expeditious disposal of the aforesaid cases. There cannot be no doubt with respect to the position that trial in criminal proceedings cannot be go on indefinitely. It is also true that in criminal proceedings opportunities ensuring fair trial should be afforded to the concerned accused. However, that does not mean that the accused can be permitted to create impediment in the matter of expeditious disposal of the matters. Ensuring fair trial does not mean that it should be ensured only to the accused. The court is having a duty to ensure fair trial to the defacto complainant as well. Unnecessary delay in the matter of trial of a criminal case cannot be appreciated at all. In the said circumstances and taking note of the fact that in C.C.No.264 of 2006 out of the seven witnesses CW7 alone is now remains to be examined and in C.C.No.452 of 2004 out of the 13 witnesses 10 witnesses were already examined, I am of the view that the trial in those cases have to be concluded expeditiously. In the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of directing the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode to expedite the trial in C.C.Nos.452 of 2004 and 264 of 2006. The trial shall be concluded and the matters shall be disposed of expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of four months from today.