in a cc case 319 crpc detailed answer required interested only answer

529 votes

section 319 crpc remains pending for respomdent which has been adjourned at the request for arguments in the cc case of 2021 the year 202q passed by repeated arguments 309 crpc what to do nexr what will the judge say

Advocate Spiti Sarkar LawRato

828 votes

Since the main C.C. case is pending since 2021 and the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has remained pending since May 2026 due to repeated adjournments at the respondent’s request, the Court is not expected to permit the proceedings to remain pending indefinitely. Section 309 Cr.P.C. emphasizes expeditious proceedings and requires reasons for adjournments. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that avoidable and prolonged delay is inconsistent with the right to speedy trial under Article 21.

Advocate Ajay Shukla LawRato

600 votes

The indefinite pendency of proceedings due to repeated adjournments at the request of the respondent side is a clear violation of the right to a speedy trial. While Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that inquiries and trials shall proceed on a day-to-day basis, the reality of the criminal justice system often results in protracted delays, as seen in this case where a 2026 application remains unresolved while the main 2021 case languishes. Filing a fresh application under Section 309 Cr.P.C. for the next hearing is a legally sound and proactive strategy. However, the primary objective should be to expedite the pending 2026 application rather than just filing another procedural motion. The judge is expected to take a strict view of the respondent's repeated delay tactics. Typically, the court will either direct the respondent to conclude their arguments on the next date, failing which the right to argue may be closed, or the court may proceed to decide the pending application based on the available record. To ensure effectiveness, the application must specifically pray for a day-to-day hearing and explicitly highlight the respondent's history of seeking adjournments. The court is likely to grant a short, peremptory adjournment or proceed ex parte on the application. Ultimately, the judge has the discretion to balance the right to a fair trial with the right to a speedy trial, and persistent delay tactics usually justify a strict timeline or an expeditious disposal order.

Advocate Lalit Saxena LawRato

649 votes

Section 319 CrPC / Ab 358 BNSS* *Yeh kya hai?* Yeh court ko power deta hai ki trial ke dauraan agar kisi aise vyakti ke khilaaf saboot aaye jiska naam FIR ya chargesheet mein nahi hai, to court usko bhi naya aaropi bana kar bula sakta hai. *Kab lagta hai?* 1. Jab gawahi chal rahi ho aur gawah kisi naye vyakti ka naam le. 2. Sirf police ke bayan se nahi, court mein diye gaye bayan se. *Kaun laga sakta hai?* Victim paksha application de sakta hai, ya Judge khud apni power se bula sakta hai. *Supreme Court ka rule - Hardeep Singh vs Punjab 2014* Court ne kaha - Yeh power bahut strong hai, isliye halke mein use mat karo. Tabhi bulao jab uske khilaaf pakka saboot ho jo saja dila sake. *Kya hota hai bulane ke baad?* Naye vyakti ko summon / warrant jata hai, us par naya charge lagta hai, aur trial phir se shuru hota hai. *Naya Kanoon:* Ab CrPC khatam ho gaya hai, BNSS aa gaya hai. Ab yahi Section *358 BNSS* hai.

Advocate Dilshad LawRato

533 votes

On the next hearing date, you can file a formal application under Section 309 Cr.P.C. to highlight the long delay and ask the court to direct a speedy disposal of the Section 319 application. The judge is empowered to penalize unnecessary adjournments and deny extra time, as a speedy trial is an essential part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Advocate Krishna Jeevan Gaur LawRato