Court reaffirms limited role of complainants in State cases, imposes costs for frivolous litigation.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Girish Kathpalia, dismissed a petition filed by Renuka Jain, the complainant de facto in a criminal case, seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of a trial stemming from FIR No. 211/2017 at PS Farsh Bazar. The case involves allegations under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
The court emphasized that in a State case, the complainant de facto does not possess the locus standi to request such directions, as their role is primarily that of a witness. The authority to file petitions for expediting trials lies solely with the State or the accused unless specific provisions in law state otherwise. Justice Kathpalia found the petition to be frivolous and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner, to be paid to the Bharat Ke Veer fund within a week.
The court further noted that the petitioner's reliance on a previous order by a coordinate bench, which directed a trial to conclude within two years, was misplaced. That particular order was issued in a writ petition and did not scrutinize the locus standi of the petitioner. Additionally, it was observed that no charges have been framed in the current case, and there was no recorded delay by the trial court.
The judgment also addressed the role of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) in providing legal aid. The court instructed the Secretary of DHCLSC to ensure that future legal aid is granted only after assessing the sustainability of the legal proceedings to avoid unnecessary expenditure of public funds.
This decision reiterates the judiciary's stance on maintaining the sanctity of the legal process and discourages the misuse of legal mechanisms for unwarranted purposes.
Bottom Line:
A complainant de facto does not have locus standi to seek directions for expeditious disposal of a trial in a State case, as their role is limited to being a witness unless explicitly provided by law.
Statutory provision(s): Section 420 IPC, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Renuka Jain v. State (NCT Of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2835243
