Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dinesh Maheshwari, Vikram Nath, JJ.
M. Gopalakrishnan & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Pasumpon Muthuramalingam & Anr. – Respondents
SLP (Criminal) Diary No(s). 30839 of 2021
Decided On : 11-03-2022
Court Order - Expeditious Proceedings - - - The court discussed the implications of issuing directions for expeditious proceedings in a particular case without considering the impact on the schedule of the subordinate court and the progression of other pending cases. The court observed that such orders should only be passed with cogent and extremely compelling reasons and after examining the matter from all angles. The court dismissed the petition while emphasizing the need to consider pending matters expeditiously.
Fact of the Case:
The accused seeks to question an order issued by the Madurai Bench of High Court of Madras directing the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings in a specific case without notice to the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for higher courts to appreciate the impact of issuing orders for expeditious proceedings without sufficient reasons and without considering the impact on other pending cases.
Issues: The lack of notice to the accused in the petition filed before the High Court, the pending revision petitions in the High Court, and the implications of issuing directions for expeditious proceedings without considering the impact on other pending cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that orders for expeditious proceedings should only be passed with cogent and extremely compelling reasons and after examining the matter from all angles. The court also highlighted the importance of considering pending matters expeditiously.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, subject to the observations made by the court. All pending applications were disposed of.
ORDER
1. In the impugned order dated 20th April, 2021 in Crl.O.P. (MD) No. 5650 of 2021, the Madurai Bench of High Court of Madras has issued directions that the Trial Court shall expedite the proceedings in S.C. No. 627 of 2017 and conclude the trial within six months.
2. Though the impugned order appears to be an innocuous one but, was passed at the instance of the complainant and without notice to the accused.
3. Now, the accused seeks to question the said order before us, inter alia, with the submissions that he was not made a party in the petition filed before the High Court by the complainant and was never heard by the High Court; and that various petitions filed against the order declining discharge, including Crl. R.C.(MD) No. 214 of 2021, are pending in the High Court.
4. Looking to the nature of the order passed by the High Court, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal in this matter but feel impelled to observe that ordinarily, before passing any such order for expeditious proceedings in a particular case (which might appear to be rather of innocuous nature), it would be appropriate for the higher Court to appreciate that any such order for one case, without cogent and extremely compelling reasons, might upset the calendar and schedule of the subordinate Court; might result in assigning an unwarranted priority to that particular case over and above other cases pending in that Court; and progression of such other cases might suffer for no reason and none of the faults of the litigants involved therein.
5. Moreover, such petitions, even when moved before the higher Court, need to be examined from all angles. It has transpired in the present matter that the said petition was filed by the complainant without even joining the accused persons as parties and the High Court had passed the impugned order while being not informed of the other relevant facts, including pendency of the revision petitions in the same High Court, as filed by the accused persons.
6. Having said so, we refrain from entertaining this petition lest there be other complications in the trial or in the pending matters but, it goes without saying that the said petitions, if pending in the High Court also deserve to be taken up for consideration expeditiously. We say no more.
7. This Petition stands dismissed subject to the observations foregoing.
8. All pending applications stand disposed of.
Orders for expeditious proceedings should only be passed with cogent and extremely compelling reasons and after examining the matter from all angles. Pending matters should also be considered expedit....
Interlocutory orders are generally not interfered with by higher courts.
The importance of expeditious disposal of criminal trials and criticism of approaching higher courts instead of cooperating with Trial Courts.
Article 227 cannot be used to pressure trial courts for expedited proceedings, especially when they are already managing a heavy caseload.
Judicial restraint must be exercised by High Courts to avoid unjust criticism of subordinate judiciary.
Litigants are generally not permitted to seek adjournments before the trial court and then invoke the High Court's jurisdiction for expediting proceedings, but specific considerations may warrant exp....
The court emphasized the overburdened nature of trial courts post-pandemic and the misuse of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court can direct the trial court to expedite proceedings under specific circumstances, but litigants must not abuse adjournment processes.
Courts must not prioritize individual cases without exceptional justification amidst pending cases, ensuring both efficiency and fairness in judicial proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
