cc case magistrate court query regarding

627 votes

In the given circumstances, filing a formal application under Section 309 CrPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate may be more effective than merely submitting a memo. The application should clearly highlight the prolonged pendency of the private complaint since 2020 and the repeated adjournments sought by the opposite party on the ground of counsel’s engagement in another court. You may pray for expeditious disposal of the complaint, recording specific reasons for any further adjournment, and fixing a short date for the next effective hearing. The court may also be requested to consider whether the ground for adjournment is genuine and whether the matter can proceed in accordance with law. A counsel’s engagement in another court should not automatically result in an indefinite postponement. The application should be supported by the order sheets showing the history of adjournments. If necessary, you may also request the court to impose appropriate costs for avoidable delay, subject to its discretion and applicable law. A memo may be useful for bringing the issue to the court’s notice, but a reasoned application seeking specific relief is generally preferable. Important: Since the complaint has been pending since 2020, verify whether the proceedings are governed by the CrPC or the corresponding provisions of the BNSS, considering the date of commencement and applicable savings provisions. The precise remedy will depend on the procedural stage of the complaint and the orders already passed by the court.

Advocate Atanu Patra LawRato

503 votes

In a criminal private complaint pending before a Judicial Magistrate since 2020, the complainant may file an application under Section 309 CrPC, read with the applicable provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as relevant to the stage of the proceeding, seeking expeditious continuation of the trial and opposing routine adjournments. The application should highlight the prolonged pendency of the case and explain that repeated adjournments on the ground of counsel’s engagement in another court should not indefinitely prejudice the complainant. The complainant may request the court to record specific reasons for any further adjournment, impose appropriate costs where legally justified, and fix a short, effective schedule for the remaining proceedings. If the opposite party’s counsel is genuinely unavailable, the court may consider reasonable safeguards, including alternative representation or other appropriate arrangements, subject to the applicable procedural law and principles of natural justice. The application should be supported by the order sheets showing previous adjournments and the dates on which the matter could not proceed. A concise, fact-specific petition under Section 309 CrPC is generally preferable to a lengthy memorandum. The complainant should seek a reasoned order for expeditious disposal rather than demand an automatic rejection of every adjournment request. The exact provision and procedural remedy should be verified against the current law, the date of institution, the nature of the complaint, and the present stage of the case.

Advocate Rakhi Dey LawRato