By Kavita Mistry 
Last Updated:
It also ordered that if the prosecution does not produce evidence on the next date, its opportunity to do so must be closed.
The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that the prolonged delay was not attributable to the accused, who had been appearing before the court as required.
The Allahabad High Court has directed a trial court in Prayagraj to finish within a month the criminal trial pending against a 73-year-old man for two decades, warning that any failure to conclude the matter would compel the High Court to initiate action against the concerned judicial officer.
It also ordered that if the prosecution does not produce evidence on the next date, its opportunity to do so must be closed.
The order came on an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking quashing of the 2005 chargesheet, the cognizance order passed the same year and the proceedings in Case No. 4971 of 2025, where the applicant, Shrish Kumar Malviya, is facing trial under Section 129 of the Representation of People Act. The applicant argued that despite being a senior citizen and regularly attending court, the prosecution has failed to bring a single witness to testify since charges were framed in 2012.
According to the records examined by the High Court, the FIR was lodged in August 2005 and the police submitted the chargesheet the following month. The trial court took cognizance in December 2005, but the file moved to the copying section and returned only in March 2010. Summons were then issued to the accused, who appeared before the trial court in September 2010. Charges were ultimately framed in February 2012. From that point onwards, the prosecution repeatedly sought adjournments to produce its witnesses, none of whom appeared.
The High Court noted that although non-bailable warrants were issued in December 2023, more than a decade after charges were framed, no witness has turned up even after that step.
Court recorded that the trial court continued to grant adjournments “liberally” without taking effective measures to secure the presence of witnesses. The case, which carries a maximum punishment of six months, has remained at the evidence stage for 13 years.
The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that the prolonged delay was not attributable to the accused, who had been appearing before the court as required. Instead, court found that the trial court’s handling of the prosecution’s repeated adjournment requests indicated a lack of seriousness in dealing with long-pending matters.
The High Court also noted that the presiding officer seemed to be routinely postponing old cases, giving rise to concerns about non-compliance with judicial directions requiring expeditious disposal.
The bench underscored that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, citing the Constitution Bench decision in Abdul Rehman Antulay and judgments in Pankaj Kumar and Hussainara Khatoon. It reiterated that this right extends both to trial and investigation and that proceedings may be quashed where delays are not attributable to the accused.
Inspecting the order sheet of the trial court, the High Court remarked that the record reflected a pattern of adjournments and inaction that contradicted repeated circulars and directions issued by both the High Court and the Supreme Court on prioritising old matters.
Calling the situation “very serious,” court held that the trial court’s conduct amounted to harassment of a senior citizen who had been dragged through a proceeding that should have been concluded years ago. It emphasised that the judiciary remains accountable and that trial courts must actively work towards the disposal of old cases.
Issuing specific directions, the High Court ordered the trial court to communicate after one month whether the trial has been concluded. It stated that if the report is not submitted, the court would have “no option except to proceed against the erring Judicial Officer” for non-compliance.
It further directed the Registrar (Compliance) to forward a copy of the order to the District Judge, Prayagraj. Court added that the applicant must not face humiliation or harassment if he cooperates during the trial.
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr…Read More
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr… Read More
November 25, 2025, 17:17 IST
Read More