Can't Withdraw Prosecution Of Gruesome Crimes Merely Because Accused Is An Elected Representative : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that the prosecution of a gruesome crime of double murder cannot be withdrawn by the State on the mere ground that the accused has a good public image being an elected representative.The Court added that being an elected representative does not per se mean that the accused enjoys a good public image.Holding so, a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish...
The Supreme Court has held that the prosecution of a gruesome crime of double murder cannot be withdrawn by the State on the mere ground that the accused has a good public image being an elected representative.
The Court added that being an elected representative does not per se mean that the accused enjoys a good public image.
Holding so, a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the withdrawal of prosecution of Ex-BSP MLA(and current BJP member) Chhote Singh in a double-murder case of 1994.
“Considering the material on record and the political influence of accused Chhote Singh and the Trial Court's casual approach towards the accusations against the then sitting Member of Legislative Assembly in allowing withdrawal of his prosecution, this court is of the opinion that merely because an accused person is elected to the Legislative Assembly cannot be a testament to their image among the general public. Matters of a gruesome crime akin to the double murder in the present case do not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of an accused named in the charge sheet after thorough investigation. Contrary to the Trial Court's view, such withdrawal cannot be said to be allowed in public interest. This reasoning cannot be accepted especially in cases of involvement of influential people.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath said.
In 2007, Chhote Singh was elected as a MLA of the ruling party. In 2008, the State applied to withdraw the prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The withdrawal of prosecution was allowed by the trial court in 2012.
The first informant filed a revision petition before the Allahabad High Court against the withdrawal of prosecution. In 2023, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, following which he approached the Supreme Court.
Court expresses concern over undue influence by powerful individuals
In the judgment, the Court expressed concern over the use of undue influence by powerful individuals in obstructing the administration of justice.
“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 ensure timely resolution of legal disputes.”, the Court said.
Supreme Court Criticizes Allahabad HC For Granting Repeated Adjournments
Additionally, the court criticized the Allahabad High Court for not expediting the proceedings in the Criminal Revision Petition preferred by the Complainant against the decision of the Trial Court ordering the withdrawal of the case against Singh. The High Court had granted several adjournments based on the request made by the Accused persons due to which the revision petition of the complainant remained pending for 12 years before the High Court and the trial proceedings were hampered due to the record being called on by the High Court.
The Court said that allowing repeated adjournments sought by the accused was a dilatory tactic deployed by him to delay the trial.
“the High Court in repeatedly allowing the adjournment requests has only allowed the accused persons to deploy dilatory tactics to delay their trial and have failed to ensure that the justice system is set in motion and is not halted due to the lamentable specter of political influence.”, the court said.
Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Adv. Ms. Chandrakala Sharma, Adv. Mr. Naresh Bhola, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Gautam, Adv. Ms. Kashish Goel, Adv. Ms. Sonal Bohra, Adv. Ms. Vandna Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Hari Singh Rawat, Adv
Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. A. K. Misra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR Mr. Priyanshu Raj, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv. Mr. R. K. Dey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. Rupak Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Prakash Sharma., Adv. Mr. Meghraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Jn Singh, Adv. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jeevan R Patil, Adv. Mr. Madhavan Srivatsan, Adv. Mr. Arjav Jain, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, AOR
Case Details: SHAILENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 476