The Supreme Court of India in Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) ruled that serious criminal charges like double murder cannot be withdrawn solely based on the accused’s political standing. Read the full case summary, legal issues, arguments, and judgment.

Introduction – Justice Over Political Influence

In a landmark judgment dated July 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the withdrawal of prosecution in serious criminal cases cannot be justified by the accused’s political image or public standing. The case, Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, highlights the misuse of political power in criminal justice and reinforces the constitutional commitment to speedy trial.

Case Background – A 1994 Double Murder in Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh

Incident and FIR

The case stems from a gruesome double murder on May 30, 1994, where armed assailants opened fire at the complainant’s residence in Jalaun, resulting in the deaths of Jagdish Sharan Srivastava and Rajkumar alias Raja Bhaiya, and serious injuries to others. An FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120B of the IPC and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Accused and Political Connection

The investigation named five accused and two unknown individuals, including Chhote Singh, an MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) from the ruling party. In 2007, the Government of Uttar Pradesh permitted withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh, citing his good public image. This was approved by the Trial Court in 2012.

Legal Challenge and Delay in Proceedings

The decision to withdraw charges was challenged by the complainant’s mother, who filed a revision petition. However, the Allahabad High Court repeatedly adjourned the matter for over 12 years, eventually dismissing it in 2023, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

• Can prosecution in serious criminal cases like murder be withdrawn based only on the accused’s public image?

• Does such a decision violate the rights of victims and their families?

• How should courts address undue political influence and judicial delay?

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Arguments

• Unjust Withdrawal: The withdrawal of murder charges against Chhote Singh was unjustified and politically motivated.

• Violation of Victim Rights: The move undermined the constitutional rights of the victims’ families.

• Misuse of Section 321 CrPC: It was argued that the withdrawal was improperly allowed under political pressure.

• Inordinate Delay: The High Court’s prolonged adjournments denied timely justice.

• Demand for Judicial Scrutiny: Urged the Supreme Court to ensure strict scrutiny over prosecutorial discretion in serious criminal cases.

Respondent’s Arguments

• Legal Use of Section 321 CrPC: The State argued that withdrawal was within the framework of law and in public interest.

• Accused’s Clean Record: Cited the lack of previous criminal history.

• No Political Motivation: Denied political interference in the withdrawal decision.

• Judicial Review Completed: Claimed that both Trial and High Courts had reviewed and accepted the withdrawal.

• Procedural Delays, Not Malicious: Attributed the delay to procedural issues rather than deliberate obstruction.

Supreme Court Judgment – Upholding the Rule of Law

In its July 15, 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court of India reversed the Trial Court’s order permitting withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh in the double murder case. The Court emphasized that:

• Withdrawal of prosecution in serious crimes cannot be based on public image or political influence.

• The rights of the victims and the severity of the offence must take priority.

• Judicial processes must be insulated from external or political pressure.

The Supreme Court also directed the High Court to expedite pending criminal revision petitions and reaffirmed the importance of judicial vigilance.

Conclusion – Strengthening the Criminal Justice System

The judgment in Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant precedent reaffirming that justice cannot be compromised for political convenience. The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes the need to:

• Protect the rule of law in India,

• Uphold victims’ rights in criminal cases, and

• Prevent the abuse of prosecutorial powers under political influence.

This decision serves as a powerful reminder that public interest must never be used as a shield to protect the powerful from facing justice.