Criminal Justice Machinery Should Not Be Kept In Limbo, Trial Can't Remain Stayed Due To Non-Availability Of Counsel: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the criminal justice machinery should not be kept in limbo and that the proceedings before the Trial Court cannot remain stayed because of the non-availability of the counsel.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of the chargesheet dated 29th January, 2013 in the FIR registered under sec. 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prayed for an adjournment on the ground that the main counsel appearing in the matter was travelling abroad and thus, was not able to appear before the Court.

It was also prayed that the Interim Order dated 7th February 2018 vide which the Trial Court was directed to defer the date of hearing until the next date of hearing before the High Court be continued.

It was submitted that the said order was extended on each subsequent date of hearing and as a result the interim directions to defer the proceedings was still in force.

On the other hand, the APP appearing for the State vehemently opposed the adjournment on the ground that the interim order dated 7th February, 2018 was still in operation and due to that the entire proceedings before the Trial Court had been kept in abeyance since 2018.

It was submitted that the interim order granted by the Coordinate Bench of High Court may be vacated as it was in operation since 2018.

The Court thus noted that the order on charge was passed on 1st September 2017 and charges were framed on 23rd September 2017. Vide order dated 7th February 2018, the proceedings before the Trial Court were kept in abeyance and the said order was extended from time to time thereby continuing the stay on the proceedings.

The Court noted that since the first deferment of proceedings, more than four years had passed, it would be travesty of justice and abuse of process if the said proceedings further remain stayed for an indefinite period.

"The criminal justice machinery should not be kept in limbo and the proceedings before the Trial Court cannot remain stayed because of the non- availability of the counsel," the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court found no cogent reason to extend the interim order dated 7th February, 2018 while vacating the same.

"Since the main counsel for the petitioner is not available for the arguments, in the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned. List on 9th May 2022," the Court said.

Case Title: SOURABH GUGNANI & ORS v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 352

Click Here To Read Order