The Supreme Court has struck down a trial court’s decision to take cognizance of a protest petition filed eight years after the closure of the original investigation, labeling it an “abuse of process of law.” The apex court’s recent ruling in the case of Ramkumar Giri v. The State and Another has significant implications for the timely administration of justice.
The sequence of events began in 2006 when an FIR was lodged, accusing several individuals of damaging a road by illegally extracting sand and gravel. The police initially closed the case in 2006, citing a lack of evidence and classifying the complaint as a “mistake of fact.” Despite a re-investigation ordered in 2007, the police reaffirmed their initial findings in 2009 with a second closure report.
Unexpectedly, in 2017, the original complainant filed a protest petition that introduced allegations against eight new individuals. This action prompted the trial court to take cognizance in 2019, based on the complainant’s statements, under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including those pertaining to rioting, assault on a public servant, and criminal intimidation.
However, Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih of the Supreme Court criticized the delay and the addition of new accused individuals as profoundly problematic. “Filing the protest petition and that also by incorporating the names of eight additional accused after a lapse of eight years from the second closure report, is itself an abuse of process of law,” the Court articulated in its judgment on November 26.
The Supreme Court overruled the Madras High Court’s prior decision that had declined to quash the magistrate’s order taking cognizance of the protest petition. The justices argued that the High Court should have acted to prevent the misuse of the judicial process, particularly since the complainant did not provide specific allegations against the newly named accused, who were not mentioned in the initial FIR.
The ruling absolves the implicated parties from further litigation, granting them relief from a prolonged legal battle. Senior advocates Jayanth Muth Raj and S Nandkumar represented the appellants, while the complainant was represented by a team including advocates Anupam Kishore Sinha and Pradeep K Tiwari.
