The Bombay High Court has strongly criticized a judicial magistrate for failing to comply with its directive to expedite a dowry harassment trial, raising concerns about the magistrate's commitment to her judicial duties.

The Division Bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale, issued the order after reviewing a report submitted by the magistrate on July 31, which cited a backlog of older cases and staff shortages as reasons for the trial delays.

"Perusal of the report clearly indicates that even though the present case was placed before the learned Judicial Officer for the first time on 30th January 2022, she did not adopt necessary steps for expeditious disposal of the said case by taking recourse of the provisions of Cr. P.C. for giving complete effect to the Order dated 24th February 2021 passed by this Court," the Court said.

The Court found these explanations inadequate, emphasizing that the magistrate holds the authority to take necessary steps to accelerate the trial process, regardless of the challenges faced. "Numerous other excuses are also given in the said report for not completing the said trial within the stipulated period. Even if the complainant was not cooperating with the trial court, the trial court has powers to apply provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to take the said case to its logical end, as per the directions issued by this Court. The offence alleged against Applicant is under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.. As per the report itself, there are in all 9 witnesses," the Bench said.

The Bench expressed disappointment with the magistrate's lack of urgency, stating, "We are unable to accept the feeble excuses given by the learned Judicial Officer in not complying with the directions issued vide Order dated 24th February 2021 and paying scant respect to it. It appears to us that the Judicial Officer concerned is not serious in performing her judicial work."

The Court also denied the magistrate's request for an additional six months to conclude the trial, noting that such a request reflects poorly on the court's functioning. In light of the magistrate's conduct, the Bench directed the registrar to forward her report to the administrative committee of the High Court for further action. "In view thereof, we direct the Registrar (Judicial-I) to place the Report dated 31st July 2024 before the Learned Administrative Committee for appropriate directions in that behalf. List the Petition before this Court after the learned Administrative Committee takes appropriate steps/action on the said report," the Court said.

Cause Title: Chandragupt Rambadan Chauhan v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Appearance:-

Applicant: Advocate Prashant Badole

Respondent: APP Vinod Chate

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice AS GadkariJustice Neela GokhaleBombay High Court

Sukriti Mishra