[ad_1]
Denial of speedy and timely justice can be “disastrous” to the rule of law in the long term, the Supreme Court said on Monday, stressing courts should nip in the bud any attempt to delay proceedings without any valid justification.
The apex court observed that the administration of justice feeds on the faith of the citizenry and nothing should be done to even remotely shake that faith and confidence.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan said the victim, the accused and the society at large have a legitimate expectation that justice will be available to the parties within a reasonable time.
“It is beyond cavil that speedy and timely justice is an important facet of rule of law. Denial of speedy and timely justice can be disastrous to rule of law in the long term,” the bench said. “Even if the parties involved in a case themselves, with no valid justification attempt to delay the proceedings, the courts need to be vigilant and nip any such attempt in the bud instantly,” the top court said.
It set aside an April 2021 order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court which had ordered further investigation in a case in which an FIR was registered in March 2013.
The bench observed that legal profession has an important role to play in the process and any proceeding or application which prima facie lacks merit should not be instituted in a court.
“We are constrained to observe this because of late we notice that pleadings/petitions with outrageous and ex facie unbelievable averments are made with no inhibition whatsoever. This is especially so in some family law proceedings, both civil and criminal,” it said.
It said that reading some of the averments made “we are left to wonder whether at all the deponents were conscious of what has been written purportedly on their behalf, before appending their signatures”.
The bench said these “misadventures” directly impinge on the rule of law, because they add to the pendency and the consequential delay in the disposal of other cases which are crying for justice.
“It is time that such frivolous and vexatious proceedings are met with due sanctions in the form of exemplary costs to dissuade parties from resorting to such tactics,” the bench said.
Dealing with the case, the bench noted the high court had, by a “cryptic order” and long after final arguments were concluded in October 2019 in the trial court, ordered further investigation in the matter.
An FIR was registered in March 2013 on a complaint regarding alleged murder of a person, the apex court noted, adding that a final report was filed in the case.
The top court observed that further investigation cannot be permitted to do a “fishing and roving enquiry” when the police had already filed a charge sheet and the very applicant for further probe has not whispered anything new in the evidence as was sought to be averred in the application seeking further probe.
It said there must be some reasonable basis which should trigger the application for further investigation so that the court was able to arrive at a satisfaction that ends of justice require ordering further investigation.
The bench noted the application for further investigation was filed in January 2020 while the charge sheet was filed as early as in July 2013.
It noted that before the trial court and the high court, the state had opposed the prayer for further investigation contending that probe was done properly and charge sheet was duly filed arraigning all the allegedly involved individuals.
“It is only in this court that the state has vehemently defended the order. A counter affidavit was filed by the state in this court in September 2024 without offering any tenable justification for the need for further investigation,” the bench said.
“While it is true that delay in trial will cede to the pursuit of truth, a distinction should be made between cases where there exist genuine grounds to hold up the proceedings and cases where such grounds do not exist. This case is a classic example of the latter category,” it said.
The bench observed that all the stakeholders in the process have contributed to the delay and in spite of 11 years having elapsed after the incident, the trial has still not concluded.
“No doubt, the high court allowed the further investigation which we have today reversed. The judgment of the high court also gave no valid justification for ordering a further investigation,” it said.
While allowing the appeal, the bench directed that the additional charge sheet dated December 2, 2021 will not be taken on record.
“We direct that after hearing arguments of parties afresh, the trial should be concluded and judgment pronounced within eight weeks from today,” it said.
This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever
[ad_2]
Source link
