2025:UHC:4734 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 86 of 2024 10 June, 2025 Swati Rani --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Bharat Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present C482 application, applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court for a direction to the learned trial court to expedite the proceedings of Criminal Case No.3034 of 2021 (Case Crime No.4 of 2021), State vs. Prashant Agarwal & others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun within stipulated time frame. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is informant/wife who lodged the FIR No.4 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun on 02.01.2021. He further contends that after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the respondent nos.2 & 3 on 05.03.2021 and the 1 2025:UHC:4734 cognizance was taken upon the aforesaid charge-sheet on 05.07.2021. 3. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that for the last four years only PW1- informant-Swati Rani was examined and the matter was getting adjourned for one pretext and the other by the respondents-accused persons. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that under Section 309 of Cr.P.C, it is provided that in every inquiry or trial shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that by delaying the trial, the provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C. are being infringed by learned trial court. 5. I have seen the order-sheet which is annexed by the applicant along with instant C482 application as annexure-3, which reflects what has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant. This Court is of the view that right to speedy justice is a fundamental right of the applicant and further provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. also mandates the day to day hearing in the matter once the trial is started. 6. In this view of the mater, the C482 application is allowed. The learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 2 2025:UHC:4734 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed off accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.06.2025 AK 3