The Supreme Court condemned the filing of a protest petition eight years after a police case closure, labeling it an “abuse of process of law” in Ramkumar Giri v. The State. The Court quashed the 2019 magistrate’s cognizance order for new accused, emphasizing judicial process integrity and discouraging misuse of belated allegations, promoting timely justice.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently condemned the filing of a protest petition eight years after a case had been closed by the police, calling it “an abuse of process of law.” The judgment, delivered in the case of Ramkumar Giri v. The State and Another, quashed the trial court’s 2019 decision to take cognizance of the case against additional accused based on the delayed protest petition.
Case Background: A Timeline of Events
The matter dates back to 2006, when an FIR was lodged against several individuals for allegedly damaging a road by removing sand and gravel with four vehicles.
- 2006: The police filed a closure report, stating no evidence was found at the scene, terming the complaint a “mistake of fact.”
- 2007: The complainant sought a re-investigation, which was permitted by a judicial magistrate.
- 2009: The police submitted a second closure report, reiterating their earlier conclusion.
- 2017: Eight years later, the complainant filed a protest petition, implicating eight new accused individuals.
Read Also: Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act ‘Draconian’ and ‘Unconstitutional’: Supreme Court
The protest petition prompted the magistrate to record the complainant’s statement and take cognizance of the case under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapons), 353 (assault on a public servant), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation).
Supreme Court’s Sharp Rebuke
A Division Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih found the belated protest petition deeply problematic.
“Filing the protest petition and that also by incorporating the names of eight additional accused after a lapse of eight years from the second closure report, is itself an abuse of process of law,”
the Court said in its November 26 judgment.
The apex court ruled that the Madras High Court erred in refusing to quash the magistrate’s cognizance order. It underscored that the complainant failed to attribute any specific act to the new accused, who were not named in the original FIR.
Supreme Court Verdict
The Court set aside the High Court’s decision and quashed the magistrate’s cognizance order dated March 1, 2019.
“In our view, the High Court ought to have interfered and quashed the order of taking cognizance as far as the present appellants are concerned,”
the bench said.
The appeals of the accused were allowed, bringing them relief after years of prolonged litigation.
Legal Representation
Senior advocates Jayanth Muth Raj and S Nandkumar, along with a team of advocates, represented the appellants. The complainant was represented by advocates Anupam Kishore Sinha, Pradeep K Tiwari, and others. Additional Advocate General V Krishnamurthy appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces the principle that judicial processes must not be misused to harass individuals with belated and unspecific allegations. The Supreme Court’s observations emphasize the importance of adhering to procedural discipline and preventing abuse of legal remedies.
The decision serves as a warning against unwarranted delays and ensures that justice remains fair and timely.
Read the Judgment here:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
