The Allahabad High Court has clarified that trial courts in Uttar Pradesh cannot defer the framing of charges in criminal cases merely because a revision petition or appeal has been filed against an order rejecting discharge applications, unless there is a specific stay granted by a superior court.
Justice Chawan Prakash made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Avanish Chandra Srivastava, a retired government employee accused in a 2004 cheating case. Srivastava had challenged the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s (CJM) order in Kaushambi rejecting his plea for discharge.
In the order dated January 8, the Court expressed concern over what it termed a “recurring trend” in criminal trial courts, where proceedings are routinely adjourned or delayed simply because the accused has approached a higher court — even when no stay is in place.
“It is a settled provision of law that merely filing of criminal revision or criminal appeal against any order does not amount that the proceedings of the said court having been stayed,” the Court observed.
The High Court stressed that subordinate courts are under a statutory duty to proceed with framing of charges when a discharge application is rejected, unless the rejection order has been stayed by a higher court. The mere pendency of a revision or writ petition, it said, is not a valid ground to delay the trial.
The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural tactics cannot be allowed to stall criminal trials indefinitely, and that lower courts must act decisively unless restrained by express judicial directions.
The Court’s directive is expected to curb delays in criminal proceedings arising from routine adjournments on account of pending petitions, thereby ensuring swifter adjudication and preventing abuse of the judicial process.
