MOINUEL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faces indictment in a pending prosecution for the offence punishable, inter alia, under Section 304A I.P.C. The alleged incident had taken place as early as on 4.7.2000. Trial has not commenced. The petitioner was not available for some period of time. Consequently, the case was transferred to the list of long pending cases. It has now been recalled from the list of long pending cases and it bears the number C.C.No. 448 of 2006. The petitioner wants his case to be disposed of expeditiously, as he is hopeful of securing an employment abroad.

(2.) Reckoning the case as one of the year 2006, the learned Magistrate has adjourned the case to 8.6.2007. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that direction may be issued to ensure expeditious disposal of the case against the petitioner. That is the short request made.

(3.) Did the petitioner move the learned Magistrate? What order did the learned Magistrate pass on such a request? Why did the petitioner not move the learned Magistrate? These questions are not answered satisfactorily. In a situation like this, the petitioner must certainly move the learned Magistrate and pray for expeditious disposal. I do not expect every litigants come to this court without and before moving the learned Magistrate adding the flood of litigations to this Court. However, I reckon the request to be legitimate. His case should not have been reckoned as other cases filed in 2006. The incident had taken place in 2000. The petitioner must move the learned Magistrate. I find no reason why the learned Magistrate should not accept the request of the petitioner, taking into account the fact that the incident had taken place as early as in 2000. No specific direction need be given now. Of course, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the order of the learned Magistrate on his request, he can approach this Court again.