The Supreme Court criticised a West Bengal magistrate for wrongly saying he lost jurisdiction after failing to meet a six-week trial deadline. The Bench stressed judges must seek time extension, not abandon cases.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticised a Judicial Magistrate in West Bengal for wrongly claiming that he had lost jurisdiction over a case just because he could not finish the trial within the time limit fixed by the top court.
A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale observed that a judge cannot abandon a case simply because he failed to complete it within the prescribed time.
The Court underlined that in such situations, the trial judge should instead request an extension of time from the higher court.
The Supreme Court said,
“We are pained to note the manner in which the order has been passed by the learned Judge. If for any reason, the Judge was not able to dispose of the matter within the prescribed time period fixed by this Court, the appropriate remedy available to him was to ask for extension of time but he cannot say that he has lost jurisdiction over the matter as the time allowed has lapsed.”
The case dates back to 2017 when the respondent, Rekha Shaw, filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Alipore in South 24 Parganas. Over the years, the case went through multiple stages of litigation and finally reached the Supreme Court.
In January 2025, while hearing a criminal appeal, the Supreme Court directed the magistrate to complete the trial within six weeks.
Also Read: Supreme Court vs Bihar| Final Voter Roll To Be Released Today!: Key Points Explained
However, in March, the magistrate passed an unusual order stating that since he was unable to finish the case within the fixed time, he no longer had jurisdiction to continue hearing it.
This order forced the petitioners, including Shiv Kumar Shaw, to again approach the Supreme Court seeking modification of its earlier order.
The Bench came down heavily on the magistrate’s approach and held that missing a timeline could never mean that jurisdiction over a pending case was lost.
The Court directed the concerned District Judge to call for an explanation from the magistrate and to submit a detailed report within one month, explaining the circumstances under which such an order was passed.
The top court also permitted the petitioners to file their response within two weeks, clarifying the reasons for the delay in proceedings.
A copy of the Supreme Court’s order was also directed to be sent to the relevant authorities for appropriate consideration.
In the matter, the petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik, along with advocates Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy and Nilesh Kumar. The respondent, Rekha Shaw, was represented by advocate Shambo Nandy.
Case Title:
Shiv Kumar Shaw & Anr. vs. Rekha Shaw.
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Fake Rape
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
