No prosecution witness examined for 35 years: Supreme Court stays case against police officer

The Supreme Court recently stayed trial proceedings in a 1989 case against a police officer after noting that no prosecution witness had been examined for 35 years. [Kailash Chandra Kapri vs State of Uttar Pradesh]

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing a plea challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to quash or stay the trial proceedings.

The Court noted that the delay in the matter spanned over three decades and observed that it was inclined to quash the proceedings on this ground alone.

"In the facts and circumstances of this case and more particularly, having regard to the fact that almost 35 years have lapsed, we are inclined to quash the proceedings only on this ground alone," the Court observed.

However, the Bench added that before passing any final order, it would like to hear the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Hence, it issued notice to the State and sought its response.

The case arose from a first information report (FIR) registered in 1989 at GRP Rambagh Police Station, Prayagraj.

The petitioner, a police officer, has been facing trial under Sections 147 (rioting), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 120 of the Railway Act.

Of the five accused originally chargesheeted, two passed away, while the remaining two co-accused were acquitted after the prosecution failed to produce any witnesses.

The matter continued to remain pending against the petitioner-police officer before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Prayagraj despite the passage of 35 years.

The petitioner initially approached the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing or stay of the trial proceedings.

However, after the High Court refused to grant relief, he moved the Supreme Court.

The top court was told that despite the passage of decades, the trial had not progressed at all due to the absence of prosecution evidence.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court issued notice to the State of UP and listed the matter for further hearing on April 29.

Advocates Rajesh Gulab Inamdar, Shashwat Anand, Sheena Taqui, Akanksha Saini, Shashank Tiwari, Ankur Azad, Saumitra Anand, Faiz Ahmad, Shrey Bhushan, Raghav Grover and Rajesh Kapoor appeared for the petitioner.

[Read Order]