The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing a criminal revision petition, has issued a significant directive to the entire district judiciary of Uttar Pradesh, cautioning against the use of abusive and inappropriate language in judicial orders and the recording of witness statements. Justice Harvir Singh upheld a trial court’s order dismissing a criminal complaint due to a lack of coherent evidence but took strong exception to the “filthy languages and abusive words” found in the lower court’s records.
The Court was hearing a criminal revision filed by Smt. Santreepa Devi against an order dated August 7, 2024, passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Varanasi. The Special Judge had dismissed her complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on the grounds of “no cogent evidence” against the accused individuals.
Background of the Case
The revisionist, Santreepa Devi, had filed a complaint which was dismissed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Varanasi. The present revision petition was filed in the High Court challenging this dismissal. The original complaint alleged that an altercation took place wherein the revisionist was assaulted. It was specifically claimed that opposite party no. 2, possessing a country-made pistol (tamancha), snatched the revisionist’s Mangalsutra at gunpoint.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Rajiv Chowdhury, argued that the trial court’s order was “wholly illegal and arbitrary.” He submitted that the Special Judge failed to properly consider the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of two other witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. He further pointed to a medical report on record which suggested that the revisionist had sustained injuries, albeit simple in nature. The counsel contended that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that an incident had occurred and the trial court erred in not summoning the accused.
Conversely, the learned Assistant Government Advocate (A.G.A.) representing the State argued that the order of the Special Judge was “perfectly valid and in accordance with law.” The A.G.A. submitted that the decision was made after a due assessment of the evidence adduced by the complainant and her witnesses. It was argued that the statements of the two witnesses did not fully support the complainant’s testimony. The State’s counsel asserted that “mere allegations made in the complaint are not sufficient to summon the accused, unless and until there is concrete and valuable evidence available on record.”
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
After hearing the arguments and perusing the record, Justice Harvir Singh found no illegality in the trial court’s order dismissing the complaint. The Court observed that the testimonies of the three witnesses, including the complainant, lacked consistency.
The judgment notes, “…the statements of three witnesses lacks coherence and continuity to make out prima facie case against the opposite party no.2. The other witnesses did not support the statement of PW1 namely, the revisionist herself and therefore, mere allegations made against the person is not sufficient, unless other cogent material is available on record.”
Regarding the medical evidence, the Court acknowledged that the report suggested simple injuries but noted, “…it has not come on record that they have been caused by which weapon is not known.”
Concluding that there was “no material on record to show that the order passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act is illegal and arbitrary,” the High Court found no reason to interfere. The Court stated, “this Court finds that no infirmity with the impugned order and no interference is required by this Court.” The revision was accordingly dismissed for being “devoid of merits.”
Directions on Use of Language in Judicial Proceedings
Despite upholding the trial court’s decision, the High Court made a significant observation regarding the language used in the proceedings. Justice Singh noted that “abusive language and literal words” were used in the order passed by the Special Judge and in the statement of a witness (PW-1) recorded on April 30, 2024.
The Court expressed its disapproval, stating, “The recording of filthy languages and abusive words in the pleadings are unwarranted and inappropriate.” It was observed that the Special Judge had not paid attention to guidelines issued by the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court directing that decent language be used in judicial orders and witness statements.
Issuing a firm directive, the Court ordered: “…it is directed that not only the individual officer but all judicial officers of the state judiciary, shall take due precautions, avoiding the uses of such abusive or filthy language and words… The decorum and dignity of the post be appeared to have been reflected in the language used in the judicial orders.”
To ensure compliance, the Court directed that a copy of its order be circulated among all judicial officers in the district courts of Uttar Pradesh. The Court clarified the positive intent behind the order, stating, “This order is being passed in positivities of things and not to be construed in negativity.” The Registrar (Compliance) was tasked with ensuring the necessary circulation and compliance.
