A victim or complainant in a criminal case has full legal standing (locus standi) to approach the High Court seeking directions for an expeditious trial, the Supreme Court recently held [Renuka Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.].

A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar passed the ruling on September 24.

The top court made the observation while setting aside a Delhi High Court order that had dismissed a complainant's petition as frivolous and imposed costs of ₹10,000 on her for approaching the High Court multiple times seeking the speedy disposal of a trial arising from her complaint.

The High Court had reasoned that in a State-prosecuted case, the complainant is merely a witness and cannot independently seek directions to expedite proceedings.

Rejecting that rationale, the Supreme Court held that victims are directly affected by judicial delays and cannot be stripped of their right to seek timely justice.

"To say that the role of the victim is limited to being a witness, is not correct. A victim or the legal guardian of the victim is a definite stakeholder in the criminal justice system. Like the accused, she has also a vested right to insist on a speedy trial and also for a fair trial. Therefore, on a reading of the statutory scheme... certainly a victim has locus standi to seek a speedy trial," the Court held.

The matter concerned a first information report (FIR) registered by the Delhi's Farsh Bazar Police on a complaint by one Renuka Jain in 2017, alleging the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before a Judicial Magistrate at Karkardooma District Courts in 2019.

Distressed by the slow pace of the trial, Jain had previously approached the Delhi High Court in 2018. In February 2023, the High Court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within two years of framing charges.

Despite that order, the trial failed to progress meaningfully - with only 1 out of 21 prosecution witnesses being cross-examined years later.

Faced with continued delay, Jain filed a fresh petition before the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking directions for an expedited trial. This time, the prosecution raised a preliminary objection, arguing that she lacked the legal standing to maintain such a petition.

On January 6, a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court agreed with the prosecution. Terming the petition "frivolous" and a "drain on the already overflowing dockets of the Court," the High Court dismissed the plea and imposed costs of ₹10,000 on Jain.

Jain then approached the Supreme Court.

Before the top court, advocate Fauzia Shakil, appearing for Jain, argued that a victim suffers acute suffering from trial delays and cannot be left without a legal remedy when proceedings stall indefinitely.

The top court found merit in this submission. It analysed the statutory provisions under the CrPC and BNSS, and emphasised that criminal proceedings are set in motion because of the loss or injury suffered by the victim.

Citing past precedents, including Mangal Singh v. Kishan Singh and Rattiram v. State of MP, the Bench emphasised that the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 is not the exclusive privilege of the accused.

"Any inordinate delay in conclusion of a criminal trial undoubtedly has a highly deleterious effect on the society generally, and particularly on the two sides of the case. But it will be a grave mistake to assume that delay in trial does not cause acute suffering and anguish to the victim of the offence. In many cases the victim may suffer even more than the accused," the Court observed.

Thus, holding that the High Court’s view was based on a complete misreading of legal provisions, the Supreme Court set aside the order of January 6, waived the costs imposed on Jain, and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a year.

[Read Order]