Bombay High Court raps magistrate for failing to comply with order to expedite trial in dowry harassment case

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has come down heavily on a magistrate for not complying with its 2021 order directing the trial to be expedited in a dowry harassment case, noting that her excuses for non-compliance were "feeble".

A division bench of Justices A S Gadkari and Neela Gokhale, in its order of August 9, said the magistrate, presiding over a Navi Mumbai judicial magistrate's court, paid scant respect to the high court directives, and it seemed that she was not serious in doing her work.

A copy of the order was made available on Tuesday.

The bench said the magistrate had only given excuses for not completing the trial within the stipulated period.

The case pertains to a matrimonial dispute and a dowry harassment case.

"We are unable to accept the feeble excuses given by the judicial officer in not complying with the directions issued by this court and paying scant respect to it. It appears to us that the judicial officer is not serious in performing her judicial work," the court said.

The bench directed that the matter, including the magistrate's report, be placed before the high court's administrative committee for appropriate directions.

The order was passed in an application filed by a man facing a dowry harassment case, claiming that despite the high court's order in 2021 for the trial to be expedited, the magistrate was yet to conclude the trial.

In February 2021, the high court directed the concerned magistrate court to expedite the trial and give its decision within four months.

The order was passed in a petition filed by the man seeking discharge in the case. The man withdrew his plea after the order to expedite the trial was passed.

In 2024, the man filed an application in the high court, claiming that despite the 2021 order, the trial court had not yet concluded the matter.

In July this year, the high court called for a report from the concerned magistrate seeking to know why the directions passed in 2021 were not complied with.

On August 9, the bench perused the report submitted by the magistrate, in which she claimed the matter was placed before her only in January 2023 and at the time, the clerk had not pointed out to her that the high court had made the case time-bound.

The magistrate further claimed she was dealing with a huge pendency of decade-long cases, and she had to give attention to each and every matter on priority.

The report further blamed insufficient staff for not complying with the HC order. The magistrate sought six months to complete the trial.

The high court, in its order, noted that even though the case was placed before the magistrate in 2023 for the first time, she did not adopt necessary steps for its expeditious disposal.