Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

A Glaring Example of How Unscrupulous Litigants Abuse and Misuse the Process of Law: Supreme Court Dismisses Petition and Imposes Costs

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a recent Order, lambasted the abuse and misuse of legal process, describing it as "a glaring example of how unscrupulous litigants abuse and misuse the process of law." The bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, dismissed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) filed by Sarita Kumari against the State of U.P. & Anr. The court-imposed costs amounting to Rs. 50,000/-, to be deposited within four weeks.

The First Information Report in the present case was lodged back in 2007. The police report under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was submitted in June 2008. The trial had reached an advanced stage with the examination of all prosecution witnesses and commencement of final arguments. The petitioner, Sarita Kumari, failed to appear during this critical phase, leading to the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against her. "At this stage, after 16 years of the lodging of the FIR and at the fag end of the trial, the petitioner filed a petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings of the Sessions Trial," the judgment noted.

Justice Vikram Nath, speaking for the bench, sternly noted that the conduct of the petitioner is a classic example of abuse of legal process. The judgment observed, "Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as already recorded in the opening paragraph, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the said petition with costs which we quantify at Rs. 50,000/-."

The court directed that this amount should be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Welfare Fund and specified that proof of such deposit must be submitted to the Registry within six weeks, failing which the matter will be listed for further orders.

The court's strong stance is seen as a signal to litigants and lawyers alike that the abuse and misuse of the judicial process will not be tolerated and would be met with financial penalties.

The judgment has set a precedent that underscores the importance of judicious use of the legal process and the consequences that unscrupulous litigants might have to face for any misuse.

This case serves as a stern reminder that the Court's time is valuable and should not be wasted by those seeking to manipulate the system for personal gains.

Date of Decision: 03-10-2023

SARITA KUMARI  vs STATE OF U.P. & ANR.                   

Latest Legal News