Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from an order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 2107 of 2012, whereby the hearing of a batch of criminal revision petitions was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the accused persons for the sixth time. The criminal revision petitions were filed by the accused persons and the mother of the present appellant against the Trial Court's order dated 19.05.2012, which allowed withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC for one accused (Chhote Singh) but dismissed it for the other nine accused. The facts trace back to an FIR dated 30.05.1994 for murder and other offences. During investigation, ten accused were chargesheeted. Chhote Singh was elected as MLA in 2007. The Governor granted permission to withdraw prosecution against Chhote Singh and later against other accused. The Trial Court allowed withdrawal only for Chhote Singh, citing his good public image and election to Legislative Assembly, but rejected it for others without reasons. The accused persons filed revision petitions challenging the rejection, and the victim's mother filed a revision challenging the withdrawal for Chhote Singh. All revisions were tagged and pending for 12 years, with the High Court adjourning the matter six times. The appellant, son of deceased Jagdish Sharan Srivastava, approached the Supreme Court seeking intervention. The Supreme Court noted the grave delay and directed the High Court to decide the revision petitions within three months, as the trial had been pending for almost three decades.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Withdrawal of Prosecution - Section 321 CrPC - Delay Tactics - The High Court adjourned criminal revision petitions six times at the request of accused persons, causing 12-year delay in trial - Supreme Court held that such repeated adjournments without deciding the revision petitions amount to abuse of process and directed the High Court to decide the revision petitions within three months (Paras 1-12).
B) Criminal Procedure - Speedy Trial - Right to Speedy Trial - The trial has been pending for almost three decades due to pendency of revision petitions - Supreme Court held that the accused cannot use revision petitions as a delay tactic to prolong trial and cause suffering to the victim's family (Paras 6-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court's repeated adjournments of criminal revision petitions, causing delay of 12 years in trial, amounts to abuse of process and requires intervention by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 18.07.2023, and directed the Allahabad High Court to decide the criminal revision petitions within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Section 321 CrPC
- Withdrawal of Prosecution
- Delay Tactics
- Adjournment
- Speedy Trial
- Abuse of Process
Case Details
2024 LawText (SC) (7) 154
Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10611 of 2023
Son of deceased Jagdish Sharan Srivastava
State of Uttar Pradesh and Chhote Singh
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against order of adjournment in criminal revision petitions challenging withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought intervention of Supreme Court to direct expeditious disposal of criminal revision petitions pending for 12 years.
Filing Reason
The High Court repeatedly adjourned the hearing of criminal revision petitions at the request of accused persons, causing delay in trial.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court allowed withdrawal of prosecution against accused Chhote Singh but rejected for other nine accused. Criminal revision petitions filed by accused and victim's mother were pending for 12 years.
Issues
Whether the High Court's repeated adjournments of criminal revision petitions amount to abuse of process?
Whether the Supreme Court should intervene to direct expeditious disposal of the revision petitions?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the trial is held up due to pendency of revision petitions and accused are using adjournments as delay tactic.
State admitted that accused used dilatory tactics and that the trial was fixed for judgment in 2004 but stayed by High Court.
Respondent No.2 (Chhote Singh) argued that the appeal is not maintainable as the impugned order is only an adjournment.
Ratio Decidendi
Repeated adjournments of criminal revision petitions without deciding them on merits, causing prolonged delay in trial, amounts to abuse of process and warrants intervention by the Supreme Court to ensure speedy justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The judicial system of our country often finds itself grappling with the pervasive issues of prolonged delay and suspected political influence within the legal proceedings.
The present case highlights the alarming trend where cases, particularly those involving influential figures, face significant delays, obstructing the administration of justice.
Under normal circumstances, we could have disposed of this appeal with a request to the High Court to decide the pending revision petitions expeditiously. However, considering the grave and sensitive nature of the issue, notices were issued not only to the respondent- State but also to respondent no. 2 who is the beneficiary of the withdrawal order.
Procedural History
FIR registered on 30.05.1994. Chargesheet filed against ten accused. Trial Court allowed withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh on 19.05.2012. Criminal revision petitions filed by accused and victim's mother. Revisions pending for 12 years with six adjournments. Supreme Court appeal against adjournment order dated 18.07.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 321
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120B
- Arms Act, 1959: 27, 30
