In a notable development, the Bombay High Court has reprimanded a trial court judge for not adhering to the deadlines set for a trial and has instructed the court’s registrar to submit a report to the administrative committee for appropriate action. This order comes in the wake of complaints about the prolonged delays in a case involving allegations of cruelty and dowry prohibition.
The dispute arose from a petition filed by a doctor from Thane, seeking expedited proceedings in a trial initiated by his estranged wife. The case concerns allegations under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (cruelty by a husband or his relatives) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner sought that the trial be concluded swiftly, citing significant delays.
The Bombay High Court had previously directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a specified period. An order dated February 24, 2021, had instructed the concerned court to wrap up the trial within four months. Despite this directive, the trial has continued to drag on, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court once again in 2024.
The petition highlighted several reasons for the delay. Despite the charges being framed and only nine prosecution witnesses being cited, the trial has been marred by repeated adjournments and absences by the complainant, who allegedly cited medical reasons. The trial court was also accused of granting long adjournment dates, contributing to the overall delay.
The petition, represented by advocate Prashant Badole, noted that the trial had been ongoing for over three years. The complainant’s cross-examination, which began in December 2021, was only concluded in March 2024.
In response to these concerns, the High Court, during a hearing in July, directed the Registrar to obtain a report from the registry of the 16th Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC), Belapur. The report was to address why the directions issued in the February 2021 order had not been complied with.
The report, submitted by the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and JMFC, Belapur, cited several reasons for the delay. These included a lack of awareness about the time-bound nature of the case until January 30, 2023, the judge’s heavy caseload, and insufficient staff. Despite these factors, the bench found the reasons insufficient to justify the continued delays.
The bench noted that even after the case was brought to the judge’s attention in January 2023, no significant steps were taken to expedite the proceedings. The judge had further requested a six-month extension to dispose of the case, which the High Court deemed unacceptable.
The bench, comprising Justices Ajay Gadkari and Neela Gokhale, expressed frustration at the “feeble excuses” provided by the Judicial Officer. The judges remarked that it appeared the judicial officer was not serious about performing her judicial duties. They highlighted the need for the Administrative Committee of the High Court to address this issue seriously.
The High Court’s order underscores the importance of adhering to court deadlines and the accountability of judicial officers in managing their caseloads efficiently. The bench has directed that further action be taken by the Administrative Committee based on the report.
The case highlights ongoing concerns regarding delays in the judicial process and the need for effective case management. The Bombay High Court’s intervention signals a commitment to addressing such issues and ensuring that judicial officers comply with procedural directives. The Administrative Committee’s forthcoming actions will be crucial in resolving the matter and reinforcing the importance of timely justice.