Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of a contempt petition and a special leave petition arising from a matrimonial criminal case. The petitioner-husband and respondent-wife were married in 2008 and had a child. In 2015, the wife filed a criminal complaint under Sections 498A, 420, 365, and 120B IPC against the husband and his relatives. A chargesheet was filed, and proceedings against some accused were quashed. The husband was granted bail with conditions restricting travel. He sought relaxation to travel to the USA, which was initially denied by the trial court but allowed by the High Court upon furnishing a bank guarantee. The wife challenged this in the Supreme Court, which disposed of the SLP by consent on 16.07.2019, directing the trial to conclude within two months. However, the trial was not completed within that time. The husband filed a contempt petition alleging the wife adopted dilatory tactics. Meanwhile, the prosecution filed an application to recall PW1 to PW4 based on a supplementary chargesheet, which the trial court dismissed. The wife then filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC in the High Court, which granted a stay of further proceedings. The husband and his parents filed an SLP against this stay. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court should not have granted stay in the teeth of its consent order. The Court found that the prosecution's recall application was not justified as the witnesses had already been extensively examined. The Court vacated the stay, directed the trial to proceed from the stage it was stayed, and closed the contempt petition without going into rival contentions. The trial court was directed to endeavor to dispose of the matter within two months.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Stay of Trial - Consent Order - High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC - The High Court granted stay of trial proceedings in a criminal case despite a consent order of the Supreme Court directing conclusion of trial within two months. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have granted such stay in the teeth of the order passed by this Court. The stay order was set aside and the trial directed to proceed. (Paras 8, 15) B) Criminal Procedure - Recall of Witnesses - Supplementary Chargesheet - After completion of prosecution evidence and examination under Section 313 CrPC, the prosecution filed an application to recall PW1 to PW4 on the basis of a supplementary chargesheet. The Supreme Court found it surprising as PW1 to PW4 were the aggrieved persons who should have spoken about all facts in the first instance. The Trial Court's dismissal of the recall application was upheld. (Paras 6-7, 12) C) Contempt of Court - Consent Order - Delay in Trial - The Supreme Court closed the contempt petition without going into rival contentions, but recorded displeasure at the manner in which proceedings dragged on despite the consent order. The Court deprecated any attempt to overreach its order. (Paras 5, 14-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in granting stay of trial proceedings in a criminal case despite a consent order of the Supreme Court directing conclusion of trial within two months, and whether the respondent-wife is guilty of contempt for delaying the trial.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of both the contempt petition and the special leave petition. The contempt petition was closed without going into rival contentions. The special leave petition was allowed, and the order of stay of further proceedings granted by the High Court in Criminal Petition No.896 of 2020 was set aside. The trial court was directed to proceed further with the trial from the stage it got stuck due to the stay order, and to endeavor to dispose of the matter within a period of two months.
Law Points
- Consent order binding on parties
- High Court should not stay trial in teeth of Supreme Court order
- Recall of witnesses after completion of evidence not justified
- Supplementary chargesheet not ground to recall witnesses already examined
