In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled on the withdrawal of prosecution in the case involving Chhote Singh. The Court’s decision reflects a commitment to ensuring justice is not delayed or compromised by external factors. Delays in the legal process are being addressed, emphasizing the importance of upholding the rule of law. This ruling marks a crucial step in expediting the almost three-decade-old criminal trial and setting the course for a fair and timely resolution of the case.
Facts
- Trial Court issued non-bailable warrants against accused persons on 18.08.2017.
- High Court directed Trial Court to expedite the trial and decide within four months.
- Judgment in criminal revision petitions reserved on 05.02.2020.
- Hearing of criminal revision petitions adjourned on 14.07.2022 due to illness.
- Trial Court allowed withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh.
- Trial Court found no reason to continue prosecution against Chhote Singh due to public image.
- Trial remained pending while the record was with the High Court.
- Criminal revision petitions filed by accused persons and mother of the appellant.
- FIR dated 30.05.1994 registered against named accused persons.
- The High Court rejected transfer petition by Chunna Singh on 20.05.2019.
- The complainant, along with his family members and villagers, was attacked by armed individuals, leading to injuries and fatalities.
- Accused Chhote Singh and Ganga Singh were identified during the investigation as being involved in the incident.
- Accused Rudrapal Singh alias Lalle was declared as a proclaimed offender and absconding.
- Multiple criminal revision petitions were filed challenging the withdrawal of prosecution against accused individuals.
- The public prosecutor was granted permission by the Governor to seek withdrawal of prosecution for certain accused persons.
Also Read: City Manager Selection Dispute: Upholding Rules 2014 Over Executive Order
Arguments
- Learned counsel for State of Uttar Pradesh admits accused using dilatory tactics to delay hearing in criminal revision petitions.
- Appellant’s mother admitted delay due to stay order of High Court.
- State has no role in adjournments sought by accused, who are influential and successful in delaying trial.
- Appellant’s son challenges adjournment order as it has caused grave injustice by prolonging trial for almost three decades.
- Accused seek adjournments in criminal revision petitions as a delay tactic to prolong trial and aggravate suffering of deceased’s family.
- Trial held up due to pendency of criminal revision petitions, with victim’s petition tagged with accused persons’ petitions.
- State mechanically granted permission to Public Prosecutor to withdraw prosecution against accused.
- Learned counsel for the Respondent Chhote Singh argues that the appellant is the one requesting adjournments and causing delays in the proceedings.
- The delays are alleged to be in the criminal appeal and revision petitions before the High Court.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgement: Quashing of Resolution Impacting Tanti-Tantwa Community
Analysis
- The case involves politically influential individuals accused of a double murder evading trial for nearly three decades.
- The High Court’s order in Criminal Revision No. 2107 of 2012 was adjourned multiple times at the request of the accused persons’ counsel, raising concerns.
- Accused Chhote Singh’s withdrawal of prosecution with the Trial Court’s approval was deemed questionable, given his political influence.
- The Trial Court’s casual approach and the undue influence of powerful individuals on the legal process have raised fairness and impartiality concerns.
- The urgent need to address systemic flaws and ensure timely resolution of legal disputes is emphasized.
- The High Court has been urged to expedite the pending revision petitions given the case’s sensitive nature and prolonged trial stagnation.
- The leverage of political power for the withdrawal of prosecution in the case is highlighted as deeply troubling.
- The court does not consider being elected to the Legislative Assembly as an indicator of the accused’s image among the general public.
- Gruesome crimes like the double murder at hand should not warrant prosecution withdrawal based solely on an accused’s good public image.
- Given the seriousness of the situation and the potential for miscarriage of justice, urgent action is necessary.
- The High Court’s repeated allowance of adjournment requests has enabled accused persons to delay trial using dilatory tactics.
- The justice system must not be hindered by political influence, as seen in this case.
- The withdrawal of prosecution of accused Chhote Singh, allowed by the Trial Court, is being set aside due to lack of acceptable reasoning, especially in cases involving influential individuals.
- The Complainant has challenged the repetitive adjournments in criminal revision petitions against the withdrawal of prosecution of Chhote Singh, prompting the court to focus solely on this case.
Also Read: Land Dispute Settlement: Validity of Compromise Decree
Decision
- The appeal is allowed, and the order dated 19.05.2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge is set aside for one specific respondent.
- The High Court of Allahabad is directed to ensure that justice is not delayed or compromised due to external factors like political influence.
- A copy of the order is to be sent to the registry of the Allahabad High Court.
- The High Court is instructed to retain only copies of the Trial Court record and send back the original record to expedite the almost three-decade-old criminal trial.
- Pending applications are disposed of.
- The High Court is to re-evaluate remaining cases and decide on other pending criminal revision petitions for withdrawal of prosecution for the nine remaining accused persons.
- Emphasis is placed on the importance of progressing with the trial without delays.
- Parties are allowed to bring this order to the High Court’s attention in the pending revisions by the accused.
Case Title: SHAILENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTVA Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2024 INSC 529)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002914-002914 – 2024
