Manish Chadha v. State(Government Of NCT Of Delhi) & ORS.

$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 69/2024 MANISH CHADHA ..... Petitioner Through:

Petitioner in person.

versus STATE(GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Additional Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Ms. Priya Rai, Mr. Jatin, Mr. Aashish Chojar and Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Advocates for R-1, R-3 to R-7.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 08.01.2024 CRL.M.A. 577/2024 (Exemption) 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 69/2024 3.

This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner who is an accused before the Trial Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. claiming expeditious completion of the trial and /or in the alternative for transfer of the case to another Court. 4.

The grievance of the Petitioner as ventilated in the present petition is that the FIR in the present case was lodged way back in 2013 and the charge sheet was filed in the same year on 12.08.2013. However, thereafter, according to the Petitioner, the trial has proceeded at snail's pace and W.P.(CRL) 69/2024 Page 1 of 2 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2024 at 14:36:49

continues to be at the stage of prosecution evidence, with no substantial progress.

5.

Petitioner who appears in person further urges that in the meantime because of prolongation of the trial and with passage of time the crucial defence witness i.e. the mother of the Petitioner has been allegedly murdered while two other defence witnesses have expired due to natural causes and therefore if the trial is not expedited, grave and irreparable injury will be caused to the Petitioner.

6.

Issue notice.

7.

Learned Additional Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and Respondents No. 3 to 7. 8.

At this stage, no notice is required to be issued to Respondent No. 2 looking at the reliefs sought.

9.

Having heard Petitioner who is present in person, this Court does find merit in the grievance ventilated by the Petitioner and as captured above. Considering the fact that two defence witnesses have expired and one is allegedly murdered on account of delay in trial, which may enure to the prejudice of the Petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition requesting the Trial Court to expedite the trial and to ensure no unnecessary adjournments are granted for recording of evidence. 10.

Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JYOTI SINGH, J JANUARY 08, 2024/shivam W.P.(CRL) 69/2024 Page 2 of 2 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2024 at 14:36:49