LexSHAILENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 813 : 2024 INSC 529 Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 2914 of 2024] 15 July 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Ten persons were arrayed as accused and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC alleging indiscriminate shooting and/or conspiracy leading to death of two persons and injury of one person. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions against nine accused persons numbered as Sessions Trial No. 17/1995. Subsequently, the case against the proclaimed offender was committed and numbered as Sessions Trial No. 66/2004. During the pendency of trial in 2007, one of the Accused, the 2nd Respondent herein was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly. Two separate applications under Section 321 CrPC were filed by the Prosecutor after getting permission from the Government to withdraw the prosecution against the 2nd Respondent and other Accused persons respectively. The first application was allowed and the other application was dismissed by the trial court. The Accused persons other than 2nd Respondent filed Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 1678 of 2012, 1874 of 2012, and the widow of one of the murdered persons filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 2107 of 2012. The order in the latter case is challenged herein. The main issue was whether the High Court was right in allowing the adjournment of a batch of criminal revision petitions pending before it for over 12 years after reserving the matter for judgment and calling for trial court records, at the request of the counsel for the accused persons for the sixth time. The court also examined the issue of whether the good public image of an accused named in the charge sheet be the sole reason warranting withdrawal of prosecution in matters of a gruesome crime akin to the double murder. * Author 814 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.321 – Application under – Guidelines Held: When the case at hand is a gruesome crime akin to double murder – A good public image of an accused named in the charge sheet – Especially when Accused is an influential person – No reason for withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of CrPC. [Para 12] Practice and Procedure – Repeated adjournments on request of Accused by High Court after reserving the judgment – Calling for Trial Court records thus halting trial. Held: The action of the High Court halting trial and not pronouncing the judgment once reserved and placing the matter after 2 years before a different bench caused prolonged delay – It also furthered dilatory tactics employed by Accused to delay their trial and failed to ensure that the justice system set in motion because of political influence – Justice should not be delayed or compromised due to political influence or any other extraneous factors [Para 6.11, 6.12, 13 and 15] List of Acts The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Prolonged delay; Withdrawing prosecution against accused; Repetitive adjournment in criminal matter; Political influence of accused. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2914 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CRLR No. 2107 of 2012 Appearances for Parties Sudhir Naagar, Neeraj Kumar, Ms. Chandrakala Sharma, Naresh Bhola, Ms. Priyanka Gautam, Ms. Kashish Goel, Ms. Sonal Bohra, Ms. Vandna Sachdeva, Hari Singh Rawat, Advs. for the Appellant. [2024] 7 S.C.R. 815 Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. A. K. Misra, Sr. Adv., Arup Banerjee, Priyanshu Raj, Sanjeev Sharma, R. K. Dey, Rajiv Agnihotri, Rupak Shrivastava, Prakash Sharma., Meghraj Singh, JN Singh, Ratnesh Kumar, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Santosh Kumar, Jeevan R Patil, Madhavan Srivatsan, Arjav Jain, Shashank Shekhar, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.