The Supreme Court of India has termed a 23-year delay in a dowry death trial as “very disturbing” and “painful,” ordering a detailed inquiry into why the Rajasthan High Court kept the matter pending for over two decades.
A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, while hearing a Special Leave Petition (Criminal), expressed deep anguish over the fact that a trial involving serious charges under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) remained stayed since 2003 due to an interim order. The Court dismissed the petition filed by the accused at the threshold but kept the matter alive to examine the administrative failure that led to such a delay.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to the death of Deepa, who married the first petitioner, Vijay Kumar, on November 21, 2000. Within nearly one year of the marriage, on December 31, 2001, Deepa died at her matrimonial home under “mysterious circumstances.”
On January 10, 2002, an FIR (No. 5/2002) was registered at the Nazirabad City Police Station, District Ajmer, based on a complaint by the deceased’s brother, Girish Goyal. The complainant alleged that his sister was being harassed for dowry and was killed by the petitioners—her husband, brother-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and uncle-in-law—by administering poison.
Following the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all seven petitioners on August 2, 2002. The Trial Court framed charges on November 15, 2002.
However, in January 2003, the petitioners challenged the order framing charges by filing a Criminal Revision Petition (No. 38/2003) before the Rajasthan High Court. On February 14, 2003, the High Court stayed further proceedings of the trial. The matter remained pending for approximately 20 years until it was taken up for hearing on August 24, 2023. Ultimately, by an order dated August 1, 2025, the High Court rejected the revision petition, prompting the accused to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Mr. Abhishek Gupta, challenged the High Court’s order dated August 1, 2025. The State of Rajasthan was represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma.
The Supreme Court, however, found no merit in the petition. “We have no hesitation in dismissing this petition at the threshold,” the Bench stated, affirming that the High Court committed no error of law in passing the impugned order.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
While dismissing the petition on merits, the Supreme Court shifted its focus to the procedural delay. The Bench observed that the litigation was “very disturbing” and raised questions regarding the 23-year pendency of a Criminal Revision Petition involving a sensitive matter like dowry death.
The Court observed:
“If criminal trials in such serious offences remain pending for years together on the strength of interim orders passed by the High Courts, it would lead to nothing but mockery of justice. Justice has to be done with all the parties. Justice cannot be done only with the accused persons. Justice has to be done even with the victim and the family members of the victim. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
The Bench posed several critical questions to the Registry of the Rajasthan High Court and the State Government:
- Why did it take 23 years for the High Court to take up the Criminal Revision Petition for hearing?
- Why was the matter not taken up earlier despite an interim relief operating against the trial?
- Why did the State of Rajasthan, as the prosecuting agency, remain quiet during this interregnum period and not take steps to get the matter decided?
The Court termed the litigation an “eye-opener for all the High Courts across the country.”
Decision and Directions
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition but issued the following directions to investigate the cause of the delay:
- Production of Records: The Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court has been directed to forward the entire record, including all order sheets, to the Supreme Court by a Special Messenger.
- Data on Pendency: The Registrar General must provide a breakup of how many Criminal Revision Petitions were filed in 2001 and how many were disposed of between 2001 and 2026.
- Listing Details: The High Court must inform the Supreme Court how many times the petitioners’ revision petition was notified for hearing from its filing until its dismissal.
- Direction to High Courts: The Bench requested the Chief Justices of all High Courts to ensure that petitions where interim orders are staying trials—particularly in sensitive cases like murder, rape, and dowry death—are taken up for hearing immediately.
- Next Hearing: The matter has been listed as “Part-Heard” on January 15, 2026, for further orders once the file is received.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan
- Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 71965/2025
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Gupta, AOR; Ms. Sheena Taqui, Adv.
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Sr. Adv.
