[2026:RJ-JP:22347] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 897/2023 Satto Son Of Shri Mahendra, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Village Kalle Ka Nangla, Post Thana Dang, Police Station Gadhibajna, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Phatak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitender Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. GA JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 26/05/2026 1. The complainant-petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to the Trial Court to frame charges against the accused and conclude the trial expeditiously within the time frame. 2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner lodged a written report against the accused-respondent on 23.11.2018, on the basis of which the FIR no. 448/2018 was registered with the Police Station Kotwali, District Dhaulpur for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. Counsel submits that the charge-sheet against the accused has been submitted before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhaulpur in the month of February, 2020 and till date charges have not been framed before the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. [2026:RJ-JP:22347] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-897/2023] 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the accused-respondent oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that the charges have already been framed against the accused and the case has been listed for arguments on the charges framed against the accused, hence, under these circumstances this petition has become infructuous. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made by both counsels and perused the material available on record. 5. So far the first prayer of the petitioner with regard to issuing of directions to the Trial Court for framing of charges is concerned, the same have already been framed by the Court below hence, the instant petition to the extent of framing of charges is dismissed as having become infructuous. 6. So far as the alternative prayer of the petitioner for fixing time limit for concluding the trial against the accused is concerned, the same cannot be accepted, as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267 has deprecated the practice of constitutional Courts issuing directions to the subordinate Courts to conclude the trial in a fix time bound schedule. 6. Hence, under these circumstance, this Court deems it just and proper to issue directions to the Court below to make all possible endeavours to conclude the trial, which is pending against the accused for more than last nine years, expeditiously, as early as possible. [2026:RJ-JP:22347] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-897/2023] 7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J RACHNA/39