'Heavens Won't Fall If...': Allahabad High Court Slams Trial Court Decision

The Allahabad High Court has come down heavily on a trial court while hearing a criminal revision petition from Meerut. The high court said the trial court should have waited for a copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court on the special leave petition (SLP) filed in the related matter.

Commenting on the trial court's decision, the high court said that if the Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut had postponed the case for a day or two to examine the order passed by the Supreme Court and act accordingly, the "heavens wouldn't have fallen".

Accepting the petitioners' plea, a single bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra said it does not approve of the approach of the trial court, which acted "too hastily" in the case. The bench also rejected the trial court's summons order.

According to the case, a criminal revision petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was filed by three persons -- Hamid, Akram, and Danish -- in September 2024.

The petitioners challenged the Sessions Court's order dated August 17, 2024, in the Allahabad High Court, under which the trial court had issued summons to them to face trial in a case registered in Meerut. The case was related to the murder of two persons in May 2020.

After investigation, the police removed the names of Hamid and two other applicants from the chargesheet. However, the prosecution filed an application to include these three in the trial, which the trial court accepted and issued summons against the accused. The accused then filed a criminal revision petition in the High Court against the order.

During the hearing in the high court, the petitioners' lawyer argued that the trial court acted with undue haste and, despite knowing that an SLP against the order was pending before the Supreme Court on August 9, 2024, it disposed of the application on August 14, 2024, the date on which the SLP was decided. The Supreme Court order, however, was uploaded on its website on August 17.

Despite this, the trial court passed the impugned order.

The prosecution's lawyer argued that it was a 'double murder' case and the names of the accused were mentioned in the main case. He argued that removing the names based solely on the statements of independent witnesses was incorrect. He contended that the accused had directly fired the shots, and therefore, they must be prosecuted.

In its 18-page judgment, the high court stated that the previous order had directed a decision in the case within 30 days, but a delay of a day or two while awaiting the Supreme Court's decision would not have been detrimental.

The court expressed its displeasure, stating that such haste was unwarranted.

The bench also observed that the courts should not do anything that diminishes people's faith in this "sacred institution".

(With inputs from Deepak Gambhir)