Back
Victim Has to Seek Like Accused:
In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of crime victims, the has held that a victim of an offence possesses the to approach the High Court seeking expeditious disposal of a criminal trial. A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar overturned a order that had dismissed a complainant's plea as and slapped her with ₹10,000 in costs.
Delayed Justice, Persistent Pursuit
The dispute traces back to FIR No. 211/2017, registered at the under . After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was registered as C.R. No. 7850/2019 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in the .
Frustrated by the lack of progress, the appellant — Renuka Jain, the — first approached the in W.P. Criminal No. 2090/2018. On , the High Court directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within two years after framing of charges. But when the trial remained sluggish, she moved the High Court again, this time under — the successor provision to — seeking a direction for expeditious disposal.
The Prosecution's Objection
This time, the prosecution raised a novel objection: the complainant lacked
to file such a petition. The Single Judge of the High Court accepted this argument, holding that in a State case, the role of the
is
"limited to being a witness"
and that
"only the State or the accused"
could bring such a petition. The High Court went further, branding the petition "
" and
"a drain on the already overflowing dockets of the Court,"
imposing costs of ₹10,000.
The Supreme Court, which had stayed the cost order on , took a diametrically opposite view.
A , Not a Spectator
The Apex Court anchored its reasoning in the statutory scheme of the Cr.P.C. and BNSS. It examined (corresponding to ), which permits a private person to instruct a pleader to act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor; () on conducting prosecution; and permitting a victim to engage an advocate to assist the prosecution. Crucially, and define "victim" as a person who has suffered loss or injury caused by the accused's act or omission.
Reading these provisions together, the Court concluded:
"A victim or the legal guardian of the victim is a definite
in the criminal justice system. Like the accused, she has also a
to insist on a
and also for a
."
The Court categorically rejected the narrow construction that a victim's role is limited to being a witness, noting that the victim is not a stranger to the proceedings —
"it is due to the loss or injury suffered by her at the hands of the accused that has triggered the criminal process."
Precedents on the Victim's Valuable Right
The judgment drew on a rich line of authority. In
Mangal Singh v. Kishan Singh
(2009) 17 SCC 303, the Court had warned against assuming that delay in trial does not cause acute suffering to victims —
"in many cases, the victim may suffer even more than the accused."
In
Rattiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2012) 4 SCC 516, the Court emphasised that the right to
, rooted in
,
"cannot be allowed to remain a mere formality"
and is a sacrosanct obligation of the justice dispensation system. The Court also invoked
J.K. International v. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2001) 3 SCC 462 and
Amir Hamza Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
(2019) 8 SCC 387 for the proposition that an
is
"not altogether wiped out from the scenario of the trial"
merely because the police investigated and filed the charge sheet. Most recently, in
Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh
(2026 SCC Online SC 1588), the Court had reiterated that the right to
"is not only the prerogative of the accused but is also a valuable right of the victim."
Reversing the Cost Order
The Supreme Court was unsparing in its critique of the High Court's approach:
"We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court castigating the victim for bringing a petition before the Court seeking a
as being completely
and a drain on the overflowing dockets of the Court. It is based on a complete misreading of the legal and constitutional provisions and cannot be sustained."
The Court noted that the prosecution had cited 22 witnesses — one deleted, leaving 21 — and that PW-1 was presently undergoing cross-examination. In light of the accumulated delay, the Bench directed the trial court to conclude the case within an outer limit of one year from .
The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the costs imposed on the appellant were vacated. The Court clarified it had expressed no opinion on the merits, keeping all contentions open. The ruling is a significant affirmation that crime victims are not passive observers but active stakeholders entitled to insist on a timely and under the .
