Fast Track Courts & Alternate Dispute Resolution Not Sufficient To Reduce Burden, Courts Should Curb Abuse Of Legal Procedures: Karnataka HC

A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said “Abuse of legal procedure is one of the major factors for delay in disposal of cases. Unless the Courts dispense with such procedures which are totally unnecessary and causes no prejudice to the parties if they are dispensed with, it would not be possible for the Courts to take effective steps for speedy disposal of the cases.”

It added “Providing Fast Track Court and use of Alternate Dispute Resolution, is not sufficient to reduce the burden of the Courts. The courts have to be proactive and they are not only required to dispense with unnecessary procedures but are also required to ensure that legal procedures are not abused.”

The court made these observations while allowing a petition filed by accused Shivappa who was charged under Sections 304A and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal and Section 135(1)A Karnataka Electricity Act. However, on the application filed by the prosecution at the fag end of the trial seeking amendment of charges, the trial court altered the charges for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II instead of offence punishable under Section 304A.

The petitioner argued that unless sufficient material is available on record during the course of trial, the power under Section 216 cannot be exercised.

The prosecution opposed the plea saying plain reading of the Section 216 of the Cr.P.C would go to show that at any stage the trial Court can alter or add any charge if it finds that there is sufficient material for exercising powers under Section 216 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that the accused are not prejudiced since they have a right to recall the witnesses.

The bench referring to Section 216 and 217 of the Code said, “It is only the trial Court which can su moto exercise power under this provision of law and power under this provision of law cannot be exercised at the instance of the accused or the complainant. If the provision of law does not provide any specific right to the parties, such a right should not be read into the provision of law by the courts, unless the court is of the view that if such a right is not conferred on the parties, there is likelihood of failure of justice.”

Referring to Supreme Court judgment in the case of P.Kartikalakshmi Vs.Sri.Ganesh and Another (2017), the court held, “In the present case, undisputedly the application is filed by the prosecution to alter the charges. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.KARTIKALAKSHMI the said application was not maintainable and therefore, the trial Court could not have entertained the same and passed the impugned order. On this short ground the order impugned is liable to be set aside.”

Appearance: Advocate Srinand A Pachhapure for Petitioner.

HCGP Girija S Hiremath for Respondents

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 96

Case Title: Shivappa AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No 100280 OF 2022.