‘Sorry state of affairs’: HC says trial court’s over 4-year delay in dealing with plea unfortunate

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has described as “unfortunate” four-and-a-half-year delay on a trial court’s part in dealing with an application moved under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on summoning additional accused.

Making it clear that the delay in dealing with the plea displayed a "sorry state of affairs", the court also directed the placing of the matter before Nuh (Mewat) District & Sessions Judge. He was, in turn, asked to ensure timely disposal of the plea by imparting of proper guidance to the magistrate concerned.

“It is unfortunate to note that an interlocutory application moved under Section 319 of the CrPC was kept pending for four-and-a-half years by the trial Judge, which shows sorry state of affairs. The matter be placed before the District & Sessions Judge, Nuh (Mewat), who shall ensure by giving proper guidance to the magistrate concerned to decide and dispose of the said application within outer limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,” the court asserted.

The matter was placed before the Bench after the petitioner filed the petition against the State of Haryana and other respondents brining to the fore the delay in dealing with his plea before the trial court. Going into the background of the matter, the Bench observed the high court’s inherent powers had been invoked seeking a direction for deciding the application under Section 319 moved by the petitioner before the trial court. “The application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is alleged to be pending since February 2020 and has still not been decided so far,” the court observed.

It added that a perusal of the zimini or the interim orders passed by the trial court and produced before the high court right from February 19, 2020, till September 12, 2024, revealed that the hearing on the application was adjourned from time to time on the insistence of one of the rival parties. “Various adjournments were granted by the trial Judge for almost four and half years and yet the said interlocutory the application has not been decided,” the court added before expressing its concern.