Supreme Court pulls up magistrate for claiming loss of jurisdiction after missing deadline in pending case

The Supreme Court recently criticised a judicial magistrate in West Bengal who claimed that he no longer had the jurisdiction to hear a pending case because he could not finish hearing the case within a six-week deadline set by the top court [Shiv Kumar Shaw & Anr. vs. Rekha Shaw].

A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale held that failure to meet a timeline could not justify abandoning jurisdiction over a case.

It said that if the trial judge was unable to meet the prescribed deadline, the correct course of action was to request an extension of time.

"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 Court noted.

The top court was hearing a plea by one Shiv Kumar Shaw who had approached it in connection with a long-pending case at the Alipore court in South 24 Parganas. The proceedings dated back to 2017 when one Rekha Shaw, the respondent, initiated a complaint which was registered before the Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Alipore.

Over the years, the matter made its way up to the Supreme Court. In January this year, the Court disposed of a criminal appeal and directed the magistrate to conclude the trial in the case within six weeks.

However, the magistrate passed an order in March stating that since he could not conclude the trial in the matter within the prescribed period, he had ceased to have jurisdiction to hear the case further.

This prompted the litigants (petitioners) to return to the Supreme Court seeking a modification of its earlier order.

The top court expressed strong displeasure at the magistrate’s approach. It held that failure to meet a timeline could not justify abandoning jurisdiction over a case.

It directed the concerned District Judge to seek an explanation from the magistrate and submit a report within a month, detailing the circumstances in which he passed such an order.

The Bench also allowed the petitioners two weeks to file their response, bringing on record the reasons for the delay in the proceedings. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the relevant authorities.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik, along with advocates Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy and Nilesh Kumar.

The respondent was represented by advocate Shambo Nandy.

[Read Order]