IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 256 of 2007()
1. MOINUEL HAQUE, CHANDIRATHIL VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/02/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 256 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2007
O R D E R
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
Crl.M.C.No. 256 of 2007 2
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.
4. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
5. Hand over a copy of the order to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, which he can produce when he files the application for early
disposal before the learned Magistrate.
(R. BASANT)
tm Judge
Crl.M.C.No. 256 of 2007 3