Shailendra Kumar Srivastava vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

15 July 2024

Case No.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2914/2024

Result

Allowed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Satish Chandra Sharma

Citation

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 813 : 2024 INSC 529

Acts & Sections

CrPC IPC

Issue for consideration

Ten persons were arrayed as accused and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC alleging indiscriminate shooting and/or conspiracy leading to death of two persons and injury of one person. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions against nine accused persons numbered as Sessions Trial No. 17/1995. Subsequently, the case against the proclaimed offender was committed and numbered as Sessions Trial No. 66/2004. During the pendency of trial in 2007, one of the Accused, the 2nd Respondent herein was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly. Two separate applications under Section

321 CrPC were filed by the Prosecutor after getting permission from the Government to withdraw the prosecution against the 2nd Respondent and other Accused persons respectively. The first application was allowed and the other application was dismissed by the trial court. The Accused persons other than 2nd Respondent filed Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 1678 of 2012, 1874 of 2012, and the widow of one of the murdered persons filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 2107 of 2012. The order in the latter case is challenged herein.

The main issue was whether the High Court was right in allowing the adjournment of a batch of criminal revision petitions pending before it for over 12 years after reserving the matter for judgment and calling for trial court records, at the request of the counsel for the accused persons for the sixth time. The court also examined the issue of whether the good public image of an accused named in the charge sheet be the sole reason warranting withdrawal of prosecution in matters of a gruesome crime akin to the double murder.

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.321 – Application under – Guidelines

Held: When the case at hand is a gruesome crime akin to double murder – A good public image of an accused named in the charge sheet – Especially when Accused is an influential person – No reason for withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of CrPC. [Para 12]

Practice and Procedure – Repeated adjournments on request of Accused by High Court after reserving the judgment – Calling for Trial Court records thus halting trial.

Held: The action of the High Court halting trial and not pronouncing the judgment once reserved and placing the matter after 2 years before a different bench caused prolonged delay – It also furthered dilatory tactics employed by Accused to delay their trial and failed to ensure that the justice system set in motion because of political influence – Justice should not be delayed or compromised due to political influence or any other extraneous factors [Para 6.11, 6.12, 13 and 15]

Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. 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. The undue influence wielded by powerful individuals further exacerbates the situation, raising concerns about fairness and impartiality. This underscores the urgent need to address systemic flaws and

View Subscription Plans →