Supreme Court Reverses Political Influence in Criminal Case: Orders Expedited Trial

The case of Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. is a striking example of judicial intervention in ensuring justice in cases affected by political influence and procedural delays. The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated July 15, 2024, set aside the withdrawal of prosecution against accused Chhote Singh, who had benefited from a government order favoring his release from trial despite being named in a double murder case.

This case highlights concerns about prolonged legal proceedings and the role of politically influential individuals in evading justice. The Supreme Court’s intervention aimed to rectify these issues and ensure an expedited trial.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around a gruesome double murder committed on May 30, 1994, in Uttar Pradesh. The victims, Rajkumar alias Raja Bhaiya and Jagdish Sharan Srivastava, were shot dead by a group of armed assailants. The FIR filed by Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, uncle of the present appellant, named five accused individuals, while two unknown persons were also mentioned. During the investigation, additional names, including Chhote Singh, emerged.

Over the years, the trial suffered from political interference, especially after one of the accused, Chhote Singh, was elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in 2007. This led to an order from the Uttar Pradesh government allowing the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case against him. The Trial Court approved this withdrawal on May 19, 2012, citing his “good public image.” However, it denied similar relief to the other accused persons without providing any clear reasons.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The appellant, son of the deceased Jagdish Sharan Srivastava, contended that:

The withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh was a politically motivated decision.
The accused had successfully delayed the trial for nearly three decades through repeated adjournments.
The High Court’s failure to decide the pending criminal revision petitions for over twelve years had further obstructed justice.
The Trial Court’s justification for allowing the withdrawal—that Chhote Singh had a “good public image” and was elected as an MLA—was legally untenable.

Arguments by the Respondent

The State of Uttar Pradesh and the accused presented counterarguments:

The accused had exercised their right to seek withdrawal of prosecution, and the Trial Court had duly considered their applications.
The delay in proceedings was partially due to legal technicalities and not entirely caused by the accused.
The appellant himself had sought multiple adjournments, which contributed to the delay in proceedings.
The High Court was in the process of resolving the pending criminal revision petitions and should be allowed to complete its review.

High Court’s Handling of the Case

The High Court of Allahabad had been hearing multiple criminal revision petitions related to the case:

Three petitions were filed by the accused challenging the rejection of their applications for withdrawal of prosecution.
One petition was filed by the appellant’s mother, challenging the withdrawal granted to Chhote Singh.
The High Court repeatedly adjourned the hearings, citing various procedural reasons.
The case had been pending before the High Court since 2012, preventing the Trial Court from proceeding with the trial.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court expressed serious concerns over the prolonged delay and observed:

“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.”

The Court further criticized the Trial Court’s reasoning:

“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 merely on the ground of good public image.”

Supreme Court’s Judgment

Based on its analysis, the Supreme Court ruled as follows:

The withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh was set aside.
The High Court was directed to decide the pending criminal revision petitions without further delay.
The original Trial Court records were to be returned so that the trial could resume immediately.
The judiciary must remain vigilant against political interference in criminal cases.

Legal Precedents Cited

The Court referenced key rulings, emphasizing the importance of fair trials and judicial accountability:

State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey – Addressing withdrawal of cases under Section 321 CrPC.
Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka – Highlighting judicial scrutiny in politically sensitive cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. underscores the importance of judicial independence and the necessity of timely trials. The verdict sends a strong message that political influence should not hinder the course of justice and that courts must remain committed to fair and unbiased proceedings.

Petitioner Name: Shailendra Kumar Srivastava.
Respondent Name: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 14-07-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: shailendra-kumar-sri-vs-the-state-of-uttar-p-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-14-07-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Judgment by Vikram Nath
See all petitions in Judgment by Satish Chandra Sharma
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category