A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court judgment in Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2914 of 2024, underscores the tension between judicial impartiality and political influence in criminal proceedings. The case revolves around the prolonged delay in resolving criminal revisions concerning a gruesome double murder due to alleged dilatory tactics by the accused and the political influence of one accused, who was a sitting MLA. The judgment invalidates the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), citing the lack of cogent reasons and emphasizing that public image or political standing cannot justify such withdrawal, especially in heinous crimes.

Keywords: Withdrawal of Prosecution, Political Influence, Judicial Delay, Double Murder, Criminal Revision Petitions.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2914 of 2024.

iii) Judgment Date: 15 July 2024.

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India.

v) Quorum: Vikram Nath J. and Satish Chandra Sharma J.

vi) Author: Vikram Nath J.

vii) Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 813.

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 321.
• Arms Act, 1959: Sections 27, 30.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any): Not applicable.

x) Related Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Procedural Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case emanates from a heinous double murder involving political overtones, where the accused allegedly exploited their influence to delay judicial proceedings. An application for withdrawal of prosecution against one of the accused, Chhote Singh, a sitting MLA, was allowed by the trial court based on his public image and absence from the FIR. However, this decision was contested as contrary to public interest, highlighting systemic issues such as judicial delays and misuse of Section 321 CrPC.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered in 1994 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, and 302 IPC against five named and two unidentified accused. The victims succumbed to gunfire by the accused during an altercation at the complainant’s residence.
2. The investigation revealed the involvement of ten individuals, including politically influential persons. The accused were charged with conspiracy and murder.
3. Sessions Trial No. 17/1995 and Sessions Trial No. 66/2004 were initiated. Chhote Singh, a sitting MLA, sought withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC, which was granted by the trial court.
4. The remaining accused faced trial. Several adjournments delayed the proceedings for decades.
5. The case reached the Supreme Court after 30 years, highlighting concerns about judicial delays and the misuse of procedural safeguards.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether political influence and public image justify the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC in cases of heinous crimes.
ii) Whether prolonged adjournments and delays undermine the justice system.
iii) Whether judicial proceedings were conducted fairly and without undue influence.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The appellant argued that the withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh was politically motivated and lacked public interest justification.
ii) They contended that adjournments were a deliberate strategy by the accused to delay justice.
iii) The appellant emphasized the impact of the delay on the victims’ families and the erosion of public trust in the justice system.
iv) It was argued that the trial court’s order favoring withdrawal of prosecution was based on irrelevant considerations like public image.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The respondents argued that the appellant’s family themselves sought adjournments, undermining their grievance regarding delays.
ii) It was contended that the State’s approval for withdrawal was based on proper assessment, reflecting public interest.
iii) They asserted that the appellant’s allegations of political influence were baseless and unsupported.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that Section 321 CrPC cannot be invoked to withdraw prosecution in heinous crimes based solely on the accused’s public image or political standing. The court emphasized that withdrawal of prosecution must align with public interest and cannot undermine justice.

b. Obiter Dicta
The court criticized the High Court for allowing repeated adjournments, enabling dilatory tactics and eroding public confidence in judicial integrity.

c. Guidelines

• Section 321 CrPC must be applied judiciously and only in genuine public interest cases.
• Judicial delays must be curtailed to uphold justice.
• Influential individuals must not exploit procedural safeguards to evade trial.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment marks a significant stance against political interference in judicial processes. It reaffirms the principle that justice cannot be compromised by extraneous influences, ensuring accountability and the rule of law.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 877.
2. Balwant Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 2265.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 321.
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307.
3. Arms Act, 1959: Sections 27, 30.