2025:HHC:8095 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1143 of 2024 Reserved on: 22.03.2025 Date of Decision: 28.03.2025. Hari Om and another ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for issuing directions to learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Shimla, to dispose of Criminal Case No. 43 of 2019 under Sections 448 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of IPC, titled State of H.P. Vs. Hari Om in a time bound manner. It has been asserted that the matter has been pending before the learned Trial Court for more than five years. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:8095 Petitioners are senior citizens who are suffering from various ailments. Hence, the direction be issued to decide the matter in a time-bound manner. 2. Mr. Rohit, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Courts are bound to decide the criminal cases as early as possible and since the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class is not deciding the matter expeditiously, therefore, a direction should be issued to the learned Trial Court for deciding the matter expeditiously and in a time bound manner. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vakil Prasad Vs. State of Bihar 2009 (3) SCC 355 in support of his submission. 3. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State submitted that the State is making its best efforts to produce witnesses, however, the learned Trial Court has a huge pendency of cases due to which cases could not be decided at the earliest. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5. It was laid down in M. Gopalakrishnan v. Pasumpon Muthuramalingam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1968, that any order of 3 2025:HHC:8095 expediting the hearing might upset the calendar and schedule of the subordinate Court, and might result in assigning an unwarranted priority to that particular case over and above other cases pending in that Court. It was observed: - “4. Looking to the nature of the order passed by the High Court, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal in this matter but feel impelled to observe that ordinarily, before passing any such order for expeditious proceedings in a particular case (which might appear to be rather of innocuous nature), it would be appropriate for the higher Court to appreciate that any such order for one case, without cogent and extremely compelling reasons, might upset the calendar and schedule of the subordinate Court; might result in assigning an unwarranted priority to that particular case over and above other cases pending in that Court; and progression of such other cases might suffer for no reason and none of the faults of the litigants involved therein.” 6. This position was reiterated in Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain vs. State of Maharashtra Writ Petition Criminal no. 587 of 2023 decided on 10.11.2023 (SC) wherein it was observed: “We are of the view that since every High Court and every Court in the country has a huge pendency, the Constitutional Court should avoid the temptation of fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of any case before any Court unless the situation is extraordinary.” 7. A similar view was taken in Allahabad High Court Bar Assn. v. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 267: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 207, wherein it was observed: 4 2025:HHC:8095 41. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations. 42. There is another important reason for adopting the said approach. Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceedings in the Constitutional Courts. Those litigants who can afford to approach the constitutional Courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing out-of-turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The Courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day-to-day functioning of the other Courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time frame. In a sense, no Court of law is inferior to the other. This Court is not superior to the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the concerned Courts unless there are very extraordinary circumstances. 8. Therefore, no direction can be issued to expedite the hearing. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the learned Trial Court shall deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible in the circumstances of the case. 5 2025:HHC:8095 9. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Trial Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 28th March, 2025 (Chander)