In a landmark judgment, the court highlights the importance of eliminating futile litigations to preserve judicial resources and protect fundamental rights.
In a significant decision, the Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Madhukar Sharma and other applicants in a case lingering for over three decades. The judgment, delivered by Justice Pankaj Bhatia, underscores the violation of the right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, due to prolonged and unproductive litigation.
The case, dating back to an incident on February 15, 1991, involved accusations under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including rioting, assault or criminal force to deter a public servant, house-trespass, and mischief causing damage. However, the court found the material in the FIR and charge sheet insufficient to substantiate these charges. The judgment pointed out the absence of evidence to prove violence, assault, or criminal force, which are prerequisites for conviction under the cited IPC sections.
Justice Bhatia noted that the failure to examine witnesses and serve all accused, compounded by the retirement or unavailability of key witnesses, rendered the trial ineffective and a drain on state resources. The court acknowledged the submission by the state counsel regarding the contemplation of policies to withdraw stale cases, aligning with efforts by other states to manage judicial resources better.
Quoting pivotal judgments such as Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, the court reaffirmed the fundamental right to a speedy trial. It highlighted that the continuation of such prolonged proceedings violates this right and does not serve any prosecutorial utility, thereby adversely affecting judicial efficiency.
The judgment also addressed the necessity for the state to formulate effective case management policies. It directed the state government to act on the recommendations of a committee constituted to eliminate futile litigations, ensuring judicial resources are not squandered on cases with no substantial evidence or prosecutorial prospects.
The court's decision is expected to influence judicial administration significantly, steering towards a more efficient legal system that prioritizes the timely delivery of justice and respects the fundamental rights of individuals.
The applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were allowed, leading to the quashing of proceedings in Case No.1214 of 1994, arising from Case Crime No.151 of 1991, involving the applicants.
Bottom Line:
Prolonged trials without substantial evidence and with unavailability of witnesses violate the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Such futile litigations drain judicial and state resources unnecessarily.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 147, 353, 452, 427 IPC, Article 21 of the Constitution, Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Section 2 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act.
Madhukar Sharma v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2845651
