Speedy Trial Is A Right Not Only Of Complainant But Accused Also: Allahabad HC Quashes A 24-Year-Old Criminal Case
The principle that speedy trial is a fundamental right of both the complainant and the accused, illustrated by the Allahabad High Court’s quashing of a 24-year-old criminal case, supported by relevant case laws
Speedy Trial Is A Right Not Only Of Complainant But Also Of Accused: Allahabad HC Quashes 24-Year-Old Criminal Case — Detailed Explanation
Introduction
The right to a speedy trial is a crucial facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It protects both the accused and the complainant from undue delay in the criminal justice system.
Facts and Judgment of Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court quashed a criminal case pending for 24 years, holding that the excessive delay in prosecution violated the right to speedy trial.
The court emphasized that speedy trial is a right of both complainant and accused.
Delay impacts not only the accused’s right to a fair trial but also causes injustice to the complainant and affects the overall credibility of the justice system.
The Court noted that after such a prolonged period, the investigation, evidence, and witnesses’ memory get impaired, making a fair trial impossible.
Legal Principles and Case Laws Supporting Speedy Trial
1. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369
The Supreme Court held that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right.
Unreasonable and unexplained delay amounts to violation of Article 21.
It is the duty of the State to provide a fair and timely trial.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Baldev Singh, AIR 1991 SC 2076
The Court reiterated that delay in trial should be within reasonable limits.
Excessive delay causes prejudice to both prosecution and defense.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
The right to life and personal liberty includes the right to a fair and speedy trial.
4. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605
The Court noted that trial should be conducted without unnecessary delay to ensure justice is served.
5. Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakad v. Union of India, (1995) 2 SCC 514
The Supreme Court quashed a case pending for over 10 years due to inordinate delay violating right to speedy trial.
Why Speedy Trial Is a Right of Both Complainant and Accused
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Accused’s interest | Prolonged trial causes mental agony, hampers defense |
| Complainant’s interest | Delay frustrates pursuit of justice, denies closure |
| Fair trial | Delay affects availability of witnesses and evidence |
| Public confidence | Delay erodes faith in judicial system |
| Justice delivery | Timely trial is essential for justice to be meaningful |
Factors Leading to Quashing Due to Delay
Delay beyond reasonable time without satisfactory explanation.
Prosecution’s failure to proceed diligently.
Prejudice caused to accused or complainant due to passage of time.
Impact on fair trial prospects due to fading memories or lost evidence.
Summary Table
| Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar | Speedy trial is fundamental right |
| Baldev Singh v. Maharashtra | Trial should be within reasonable delay |
| Chandrakant Kakad v. UOI | Delay can lead to quashing of case |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | Right to life includes fair and speedy trial |
| Allahabad HC (24-year delay) | Extreme delay justifies quashing |
Conclusion
The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional right of both the accused and the complainant. The courts have consistently held that undue delay violates this right and can lead to quashing of criminal proceedings. The Allahabad High Court’s quashing of a 24-year-old criminal case exemplifies the judiciary’s commitment to upholding this right and ensuring justice is not only done but done promptly.
RELATED Blog
0 comments