Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 529
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.16417 of 2023)
SHAILENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
& ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
undue influence wielded by powerful
Date: 2024.07.15
18:46:15 IST
Reason:
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 1 of 17
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.
3. Under normal circumstances, we could have
disposed of this appeal with a request to the
High Court to decide the pending revision
petitions expeditiously. However, considering
the grave and sensitive nature of the issue,
notices were issued not only to the respondent-
State but also to respondent no. 2 who is the
beneficiary of the withdrawal order.
4. The present appeal arises out of the impugned
order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the
Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No.
2107 of 2012 whereby the hearing of a batch of
criminal revision petitions was adjourned at the
request of the counsel for the accused persons
for the sixth time. The criminal revision
petitions being heard together before the High
Court have been filed by the accused persons as
well as the mother of the present appellant, who
is the widow of one of the deceased persons,
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 2 of 17
against the order of the Trial Court dated
19.05.2012 whereby the application for
withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321,
1
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was allowed
for one of the accused persons, Chhote Singh,
but was dismissed with respect to the other nine
accused persons.
5. Criminal Revision Nos. 1678 of 2012, 1874 of
2012, and 1900 of 2012 have been filed by the
accused persons against dismissal of their
application for withdrawal of prosecution under
Section 321, CrPC and Criminal Revision No.
2107 of 2012 has been filed by the mother of the
present appellant challenging the grant of
permission for withdrawal of the prosecution
against accused Chhote Singh.
6. The facts leading to the filing of the above
criminal revision petitions are as follows:
6.1 First Information Report dated 30.05.1994
was registered by complainant Rajendra
Kumar Srivastava, uncle of the present
appellant, for offences under Sections 147,
1
CrPC
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 3 of 17
148, 149, 307, 302, Indian Penal code,
2
1860 , against five named accused persons,
namely Rudra Pal Singh alias Lalle, Raja
Singh, Karan Singh alias Kalle, Chunna
Singh, Santavan Singh, and against two
unknown persons. It was alleged by the
complainant that on the same day at around
12:30 PM, he along with his elder brothers
Jagdish Sharan Srivastava and Rajkumar
alias Raja Bhaiya, nephew Kuldeep Singh,
and two persons from their village, Virendra
Singh and Ramkaran Singh, was sitting in
the complainant’s house and talking when
the accused persons, armed with guns,
entered through the front gate. One of the
accused persons, Rudrapal Singh alias Lalle
challenged them and alleged that the victims
had been making police complaints against
him for kidnapping and selling opium, and
therefore they had come to teach the victims
a lesson. The accused persons fired
indiscriminately owing to which Rajkumar
and Jagdish Sharan got injured and fell
2
IPC
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 4 of 17
down, and later succumbed to their injuries.
Virendra Singh was also injured. The
complainant was also fired at by Chunna
Singh and Santavan Singh but got saved
because he was laid down on the ground.
6.2 During the investigation, names of accused
Chhote Singh and Ganga Singh came up in
light of those previously arrayed as unknown
persons. Three others, Akhilesh Kumar,
Surendrapal Singh and Krishna Murari were
found to be involved in the conspiracy for the
incident by the investigating agency.
Therefore, chargesheet was filed by the
Investigating Officer against ten accused
persons for offences under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 120B, 302, IPC and Sections 27,
30, Arms Act, 1959.
6.3 Accused Rudrapal Singh alias Lalle was
absconding and was declared as proclaimed
offender. Thus Sessions Trial No. 17/1995
was committed to the Court of Sessions
against the other nine accused persons.
Subsequently Sessions Trial No. 66/2004
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 5 of 17
against Rudrapal Singh alias Lalle was also
committed to the Court of Sessions.
6.4 Accused Chhote Singh was elected as
Member of Legislative Assembly from the
ruling party in Uttar Pradesh in the year
2007.
6.5 The Governor of Uttar Pradesh, vide a
Government Order, Serial No. –
901WC/Seven-Justice-5-2007-361 WC/
2007, dated 16.04.2008, addressed to the
District Magistrate, Jalaun, Orai, granted
permission to the Public Prosecutor to
submit an application before the Trial Court
seeking withdrawal of prosecution of Chhote
Singh.
6.6 The above Government Order was modified to
further grant permission to the Public
Prosecutor to file an application seeking
withdrawal of the prosecution of other
accused persons as well.
6.7 Both the applications filed under Section
321, CrPC, seeking withdrawal of
prosecution were heard and disposed of
together by the Trial Court vide order dated
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 6 of 17
19.05.2012. The Trial Court allowed the
withdrawal of prosecution against accused
Chhote Singh observing that the image of
accused Chhote Singh is good among the
public and he is a respected citizen of the
society. The public has shown its trust in him
by electing him to the Legislative Assembly.
Further it was noted that Chhote Singh had
not been named in the FIR and the reasons
for the same were not made clear by the
complainant. Additionally, since no other
serious cases were registered against him,
the Trial Court considering all the factors
found no reason to allow the prosecution to
continue against Chhote Singh. With respect
to other accused persons, the application
seeking withdrawal of prosecution was
simply rejected without providing any
reasons.
6.8 The remaining accused persons, whose
application under Section 321, CrPC was
rejected, filed three separate criminal revision
petitions challenging the order of the Trial
Court which came to be registered as
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 7 of 17
Criminal Revision No. 1678 of 2012, Criminal
Revision No. 1874 of 2012 and Criminal
Revision No. 1900 of 2012. A separate
criminal revision petition was filed by the
mother of the present appellant, widow of
deceased Jagdish Sharan Srivastava,
challenging the withdrawal of prosecution
against accused Chhote Singh being
permitted by the Trial Court, and the same
was registered as Criminal Revision No. 2107
of 2012.
6.9 All the four criminal revisions were tagged to
be heard together before the High Court and
vide order dates 30.05.2012 it was directed
that no coercive action shall be taken against
the revisionist – accused persons.
6.10 During the long pendency of the criminal
revision petitions before the High Court, the
Trial Court issued non-bailable warrants
against the accused persons on 18.08.2017.
One of the accused persons, Chunna Singh,
preferred a Transfer Petition seeking transfer
of his trial but the same was rejected by the
High Court on 20.05.2019 holding that the
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 8 of 17
petition had not been moved with a fair
motive and it appeared to be a well thought
out tactic to delay the conclusion of the trial.
By the same order, the High Court noted that
the trial had been lingering on for past 24
years and directed the Trial Court to expedite
the trial and decide the same within a period
of four months, with a further direction to not
grant any adjournment.
6.11 On 05.02.2020 all the criminal revision
petitions were finally heard together and
judgment was reserved and Trial Court
record was summoned. The judgment
reserved was never pronounced, and the
criminal revision petitions were again listed
for hearing before a different bench on
14.07.2022. Since the Trial court record was
submitted to the High Court the trial
remained pending in the meantime.
6.12 The criminal revision petitions were listed for
hearing before the High Court on 14.07.2022
but the hearing was adjourned on account of
illness slip circulated on behalf of the counsel
for the accused persons. Subsequently the
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 9 of 17
hearing of the criminal revision petitions was
adjourned five more times. It was last listed
on 18.07.2023 and was again adjourned to
be heard on 26.07.2023.
7. It is this order of adjournment dated 18.07.2023
that is challenged before us by the son of
deceased Jagdish Sharan Srivastava who is
seeking intervention of this Court in the case on
the ground that grave injustice has been caused
to the appellant and his family as the trial has
been pending for almost three decades on
account of the prolonged pendency of the
criminal revision petitions for twelve years. The
accused persons have been seeking
adjournments in the criminal revision petitions
as a delay tactic to prolong the trial, thus
aggravating the suffering of the deceased’s
family and delaying the process of justice.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for all the
parties and have also perused the material
produced on record. The learned counsel for the
appellant has contended that the entire trial is
held up owing to the pendency of the criminal
revision petitions and the Trial Court record
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 10 of 17
being retained with the High Court. They have
further brought to the notice of this Court that
the matter was being listed before the High
Court only after applications for listing were
filed on behalf of the present appellant and
despite the same it was repeatedly adjourned on
the request of the Respondents. It is also the
appellant’s contention that the victim’s revision
petition was tagged with the revision petitions of
the accused persons and thus the same is being
used by the accused persons to delay the trial
despite their applications lacking any
substance. Furthermore, they have contended
that the State mechanically granted permission
to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the
prosecution against the accused persons. The
grant of permission for the withdrawal of
prosecution with respect to accused Chhote
Singh was also granted by the Trial Court owing
to his political standing and for no other cogent
reasons. Similarly, other accused persons are
also influential people and have succeeded in
delaying the trial period for an indefinite period
and are continuing to do the same.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 11 of 17
9. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1, State of
Uttar Pradesh, while admitting that the accused
persons have been using several dilatory tactics
to delay the conclusion of the hearing in the
criminal revision petitions, also submitted that
the mother of the appellant in one of her
applications seeking dismissal of the accused
persons’ application under Section 321, CrPC
had admitted that after examination of all the
witnesses and conclusion of the arguments in
Sessions Trial No. 17/1995 the matter was fixed
for 26.07.2004 but due to stay order of the High
Court the Judgment could not be pronounced.
The State further submitted that it does not
have any role in the adjournments which were
sought by the accused persons and that they
could not stop the accused persons from
exercising one of their rights to seek parity with
accused Chhote Singh.
10. On the contrary, the learned counsel for
Respondent No.2, Chhote Singh, has contended
that it is actually the present appellant who has
been seeking adjournments and thereby
delaying the proceedings in the criminal
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 12 of 17
revision petitions before the High Court. Since
the appellant has not approached this Court
with clean hands, it is merely on the ground of
suppression of fact that the present appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
11. It is apparent that this case presents concerning
circumstances wherein politically influential
individuals, accused of a double murder in
broad daylight, have evaded trial for almost
three decades. We also acknowledge that it is
evident from the Trial Court’s order dated
19.05.2012 that political power has been
leveraged to secure the withdrawal of
prosecution of accused Chhote Singh. While the
other nine accused were put to trial and their
applications rejected without a reasoned order,
this order being challenged by both, accused
persons and the victims, has remained pending
before the High Court for twelve years and the
resultant stagnation in trial proceedings is
deeply troubling. Given the gravity of the
situation and the risk of miscarriage of justice,
urgent action is warranted.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 13 of 17
12. 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.
13. Additionally, 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
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 14 of 17
and is not halted due to the lamentable specter
of political influence.
14. We had sent notice to the accused Chhote
Singh, who is Respondent No.2 in the present
Appeal, and have heard the case on its merits
with regard to the application under Section
321, CrPC which was filed by Respondent No.2
and allowed by the Trial Court. In the light of
the discussion made above, we are inclined to
set aside the withdrawal of prosecution of
accused Chhote Singh as allowed by the Trial
Court.
15. Complainant has approached this Court
challenging the repetitive adjournments in their
criminal revision petitions against withdrawal of
Respondent No.2’s prosecution, thus we are
only deciding with respect to the case of
Respondent No.2. Other accused persons are
not before us; thus we are not going into the
merits of their applications seeking withdrawal
of prosecution. However, acknowledging the
extensive delay already caused in the case, we
are inclined to request the High Court to ensure
that justice is not further delayed or
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 15 of 17
compromised- due to political influence or any
other extraneous factors.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the Criminal
Revision No. 2107 of 2012 pending before the
High Court of Allahabad is allowed, and order
dated 19.05.2012 passed by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge (Temporary Ex Cadre
Court-01), at Jalaun, Orai, is set aside only with
respect to Respondent No.2 herein.
17. In light of the aforementioned concerns, this
Court directs the registry to send a copy of this
order to the registry of the Allahabad High
Court. Additionally, the parties before the High
Court are also at liberty to bring this order to
the notice of the High Court in the pending
revisions by the accused. Thereafter, the High
Court shall, considering the observations made
by this Court, re-evaluate the remaining cases
and decide the other pending criminal revision
petitions for the withdrawal of prosecution as
prayed by the remaining nine accused persons.
18. Lastly, this Court emphasizes the paramount
importance of ensuring progression of the trial
without further delay. The High Court shall
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 16 of 17
retain with it only copies of the Trial Court
record for its perusal and consideration in
disposing of the criminal revision petitions of
the accused persons pending before it, and send
back the original record to the Trial Court for
expeditious conclusion of the criminal trial
which has been pending for almost three
decades now.
19. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed
of.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI
JULY 15, 2024
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.16417/2023 Page 17 of 17