The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with an order of the Rajasthan High Court refusing to quash charges framed in a dowry death case, while expressing concern over the 23-year inordinate delay in the disposal of the criminal revision petition.
Describing the litigation as “very disturbing” and “painful”, the Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan questioned “why it took 23 years for the High Court to take up the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioners for hearing, more particularly when the subject matter of challenge in the Criminal Revision Petition was an order framing charge in a very sensitive and serious trial like one of dowry death.”
The Bench also sought an explanation from the State of Rajasthan, asking what steps it took as the prosecuting agency to ensure that the criminal revision petition was heard at the earliest, and why the State remained inactive for 23 years without taking any steps to have the revision decided on merits.
The case arose from an FIR registered in January 2002, after the death of a married woman at her matrimonial home, leading to the filing of a charge sheet against the husband and other accused under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC. The Trial Court framed the charges in November 2002, leading to the filing of a criminal revision petition before the Rajasthan High Court, where further proceedings before the trial court were stayed in February 2003.
The criminal revision petition continued to be pending for over two decades before the High Court and was eventually dismissed on August 1, 2025, holding the order to frame the charges. Aggrieved by the same, the accused approached the Supreme Court.
The Court discovered no ground to interfere with the High Court’s decision on merits and dismissed the Special Leave Petition but showed serious concern on the prolonged pendency of the revision petition of 23 years.
In this backdrop, the Supreme Court directed the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court to forward the entire record of the case along with all order sheets to the Court. It further sought details from the High Court regarding the number of criminal revision petitions filed and disposed of between 2001 and 2026, as well as information on how many times the present revision petition was listed for hearing during this period.
Emphasising that prolonged stays of criminal trials in serious offences such as dowry death, murder and rape lead to a “mockery of justice”, the Court requested Chief Justices of all High Courts to ensure that petitions where interim orders stall trials are taken up for hearing expeditiously.
Calling the case an “eye-opener” for all High Courts across the country, the court emphasised that the pending criminal trials of such serious offenses leads to “mockery of justice”. The Court opined that “Justice has to be done with all the parties…Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
The court has requested the chief justice of all the high courts to ensure that criminal matters that are sensitive in nature, like murder, dowry death, rape, etc., are taken up for hearing immediately.
The matter has been listed as part-heard on January 15. A copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the Secretary Generals and Registrar Generals of all High Courts for placing it before the respective Chief Justices.
Appearances:
Advocate-on-record Abhishek Gupta and Advocate Sheena Taqui for the Petitioner
Senior Advocate Shiv Mangal Sharma for the Respondent
