‘Lethargic in Duty’: Allahabad HC Pulls Up Trial Court Over 20-Year-Old Case Against 73-Year-Old

The Allahabad High Court has directed a trial court in Prayagraj to conclude within one month the 20-year-old criminal case pending against a 73-year-old man charged under Section 129 of the Representation of People Act, warning that any further delay may invite action against the presiding judicial officer.

Court said that if the prosecution fails to produce evidence on the next date, the opportunity to lead evidence must be closed.

The order was passed in an application filed by Shrish Kumar Malviya seeking quashing of the 2005 chargesheet, the cognizance order passed the same year, and the criminal proceedings that have remained pending without any progress in evidence since charges were framed more than a decade ago.

The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that the case reflected a “very serious matter” where an elderly accused had been “victimized by the trial court” due to its repeated adjournments and failure to secure prosecution witnesses.

According to the court records, the FIR was lodged on August 17, 2005, and the chargesheet was filed on September 9, 2005. Cognizance was taken in December 2005, but the file was sent to the copying section and returned only in March 2010. Summons were then issued to the applicant, who appeared before the court in September 2010. Charges were ultimately framed on February 9, 2012. Since then, the applicant has been regularly appearing for 13 years, but not a single prosecution witness has come forward to testify.

The High Court recorded that the trial court continued granting dates sought by the prosecution “one after another,” taking no action for years to compel the presence of witnesses. Even after issuing non-bailable warrants in December 2023, almost 11 years after charges were framed, the witnesses did not appear, and the trial court took no consequential action. The case, which carries a maximum punishment of six months, has remained pending for two decades.

Justice Singh noted that the trial court’s approach suggested a “lack of sense of responsibility and seriousness” in dealing with old cases, despite repeated directions from the High Court and Supreme Court that such cases must be prioritized. Court remarked that the conduct of the trial court “gives an impression that there is something wrong somewhere” and emphasised that the judiciary, like all other organs of the State, is accountable to the people.

Reiterating the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21, court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Abdul Rehman Antulay, which held that the right extends even to the period of investigation. It also cited Pankaj Kumar vs State of Maharashtra and Hussainara Khatoon, where the Supreme Court held that unreasonable delay violates fundamental rights and can justify quashing proceedings when the delay is not attributable to the accused.

In this case, the High Court found that the applicant had not caused any delay. The delay, it said, lay entirely with the prosecution, coupled with the “lethargic” approach of the trial court in not closing evidence despite the prosecution’s failure to produce witnesses for over a decade. The court held that such conduct could not be appreciated.

Directing strict compliance, the High Court ordered the trial court to conclude the trial within one month from the date a certified copy of the order is produced.

It further directed the trial court to report to the High Court after one month whether the trial has concluded, cautioning that failure to comply would leave the High Court with “no option” but to proceed against the judicial officer. The Registrar (Compliance) has been directed to send a copy of the order to the District Judge, Prayagraj, and court added that the applicant must not be humiliated or harassed if he cooperates during the trial.

Case Title: Shrish Kumar Malviya vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: November 20, 2025

Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh