Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Supreme Court Condemns Political Influence in Judiciary: “Withdrawal of Prosecution Cannot Be Based on Public Image”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court sets aside trial court’s order in a decades-old double murder case, directs expeditious trial.

In a landmark judgment delivered on July 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of India has nullified the trial court’s order allowing the withdrawal of prosecution against a politically influential accused, Chhote Singh, in a double murder case dating back nearly three decades. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, underscored the importance of judicial integrity and the dangers posed by political interference in the judicial process. The court also directed the Allahabad High Court to expedite the trial and resolve the long-pending criminal revisions.

The case originates from a First Information Report (FIR) registered on May 30, 1994, by Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, alleging that several accused, including Chhote Singh, attacked and killed Jagdish Sharan Srivastava and Rajkumar alias Raja Bhaiya. The accused were armed and allegedly motivated by prior complaints against them involving criminal activities. Despite being initially named in the charge sheet, Chhote Singh’s prosecution was withdrawn by the trial court in 2012, citing his good public image and political standing.

The Supreme Court condemned the nearly three-decade delay in the trial, attributing it to the political influence of the accused. “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 bench noted. The court criticized the High Court for repeatedly adjourning the hearings, thereby enabling the accused to use dilatory tactics.

The trial court’s decision to allow the withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh was harshly criticized. The Supreme Court emphasized that withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be based on the merits of the case rather than the accused’s public image or political standing. “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,” the court asserted.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the trial court’s reasoning, which relied heavily on Chhote Singh’s political status and public image, was flawed. The court reiterated that political power should not influence judicial decisions. “Merely because an accused person is elected to the Legislative Assembly cannot be a testament to their image among the general public,” Justice Vikram Nath observed.

Justice Vikram Nath remarked, “The corroboration provided by the political influence is a significant factor that hinders the prosecution??s case, especially when judicial processes are delayed under duress.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the trial court’s order and direct the High Court to expedite the trial marks a significant step towards ensuring that political influence does not derail the course of justice. By reaffirming the necessity of evaluating cases based on their merits, the judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to impartiality and the rule of law. This ruling is expected to expedite pending cases involving influential individuals and reinforce the legal framework to prevent misuse of political power in judicial proceedings.

Date of Decision: July 15, 2024

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Latest Legal News