Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

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