The Allahabad High Court criticised the trial court for delaying a minor case for over 20 years and called its conduct “lethargic in duty”. It ordered the matter to be concluded within one month, warning action against the judicial officer if further delay occurs.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has taken strong note of an extremely long-pending criminal case and directed a trial court in Prayagraj to complete the matter within one month.
The case, pending for over 20 years, is against a 73-year-old man who has been charged under Section 129 of the Representation of People Act, which carries a maximum punishment of only six months.
The High Court clearly warned that any further delay in completing the trial may lead to action against the presiding judicial officer. It also stated that if the prosecution fails to produce its witnesses on the next date, the chance to lead evidence must be closed.
This order was passed on an application filed by Shrish Kumar Malviya, who had asked the court to quash the 2005 chargesheet, the cognizance order passed in the same year, and the criminal proceedings which have continued without any real progress for many years.
The court noted that even after charges were framed more than a decade ago, no prosecution witness has been examined till date.
The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh called the situation a “very serious matter” and observed that the elderly accused had been “victimized by the trial court” due to repeated adjournments and the failure of the court to ensure the presence of prosecution witnesses.
As per the court records, the FIR was registered on August 17, 2005, and the chargesheet was filed on September 9, 2005. Cognizance was taken in December 2005, but the case file was sent to the copying section and was returned only in March 2010.
After this, summons were issued to the applicant, and he appeared before the trial court in September 2010.
However, formal charges were framed only on February 9, 2012. Since then, for the last 13 years, the applicant has regularly appeared before the court, but not a single witness from the prosecution side has come forward to give evidence.
The High Court recorded that the trial court kept granting dates to the prosecution “one after another,” without taking any serious action to force the witnesses to appear.
It was further noted that even after non-bailable warrants were issued in December 2023, which was nearly 11 years after charges were framed, the witnesses still did not appear. Despite this, the trial court failed to take any effective or consequential steps to move the case forward.
The case has remained pending for two full decades despite involving a minor offence with a maximum punishment of only six months.
Justice Singh strongly criticised this approach and said the attitude of the trial court showed a “lack of sense of responsibility and seriousness” in dealing with old cases, even though both the High Court and the Supreme Court have repeatedly directed that such matters must be given priority.
The court further remarked that the conduct of the trial court “gives an impression that there is something wrong somewhere” and stressed that the judiciary, just like other organs of the State, is accountable to the people of the country.
While explaining the importance of speedy justice, the High Court referred to Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial.
It also relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Abdul Rehman Antulay, which held that this right also covers the period of investigation.
The court further cited Pankaj Kumar vs State of Maharashtra and Hussainara Khatoon, where the Supreme Court ruled that unreasonable delay violates fundamental rights and can be a valid ground to quash proceedings when the accused is not responsible for such delay.
In the present case, the High Court clearly found that the applicant had not caused any delay. Instead, the responsibility lay entirely on the prosecution and the “lethargic” manner in which the trial court handled the matter, especially by not closing evidence even after the prosecution failed to produce witnesses for more than 10 years.
The court stated that such conduct could not be appreciated in any manner.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the trial court to complete the entire trial within one month from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before it.
The trial court has also been instructed to submit a report to the High Court after one month confirming whether the trial has been concluded. It was clearly warned that failure to follow these directions would leave the High Court with “no option” but to initiate proceedings against the concerned judicial officer.
The Registrar (Compliance) has been directed to send a copy of the order to the District Judge, Prayagraj for strict implementation.
The High Court also added that the applicant should not be humiliated or harassed in any man ner if he continues to cooperate during the trial process.
Case Title:
Shrish Kumar Malviya vs. State of U.P. and Another Order Date: November 20, 2025
Click Here To Read More Reports on Govt Schools
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
