SHAILENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

                  [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
       undue influence wielded by powerful 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, against the order of the Trial Court dated
       19.05.2012 whereby the application for withdrawal of prosecution
       under Section 321, Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 was allowed


1    CrPC
816                                                           [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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, 148, 149, 307, 302,
           Indian Penal code, 18602, 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 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



2    IPC
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                          817

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


           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
         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 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.
818                                                          [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 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 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
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                           819

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


            the accused persons. Subsequently the 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 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.
9.     Learned counsel for Respondent No.1, State of Uttar Pradesh, while
       admitting that the accused persons have been using several dilatory
820                                                           [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 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.
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
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                          821

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


     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 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 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,
822                                                                [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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
    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.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Swathi H. Prasad, Hony. Associate Editor
                                   (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv)