Supreme Court directs speedy trial in matrimonial dispute case: T.S.K. Ashwin Kumar vs. Tubati Srivalli & Ors. (2020) INSC 497 (06 November 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 06 November 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 497
Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Can a High Court stay a trial when the Supreme Court has already mandated its completion within a specific timeframe? This question was at the heart of a recent case before the Supreme Court of India, where a matrimonial dispute led to a contempt petition and a special leave petition. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of delays in a criminal trial arising from a matrimonial dispute, emphasizing the need for timely justice. The bench comprised Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, with the judgment authored by Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

Case Background

The case revolves around a matrimonial dispute between T.S.K. Ashwin Kumar (the petitioner) and Tubati Srivalli (the first respondent). They married on December 7, 2008, in Hyderabad and had a son on April 4, 2010. After living in the United States, they returned to India in November 2015. On December 20, 2015, the wife filed a criminal complaint against her husband and his family, alleging offences under Section 498A (cruelty to a married woman), Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), Section 420 (cheating), and Section 365 (kidnapping) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A charge-sheet was filed on March 12, 2017, and a supplementary charge-sheet on December 20, 2017. However, proceedings against some relatives were quashed by the Supreme Court on August 21, 2018. The husband, initially on bail with travel restrictions, was later allowed to travel to the USA by the High Court on November 8, 2018, after furnishing a bank guarantee. The wife challenged this relaxation in the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the husband was granted bail by the Trial Court on December 29, 2017, with a condition that he could not leave the state or country without prior permission. His petition to relax this condition to travel to the USA was dismissed by the Trial Court on June 20, 2018. Subsequently, the High Court granted him permission to travel to the USA on November 8, 2018, subject to a bank guarantee. The wife then challenged this order in the Supreme Court. On July 16, 2019, the Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 10686 of 2018 by consent of parties, directing the Trial Court to conclude the trial within two months. However, the trial was not completed within this timeframe. The State, through the Assistant Public Prosecutor, filed a petition on January 17, 2020, to reopen the evidence and recall PWs 1 to 4, which was dismissed by the Trial Court on January 23, 2020. Challenging this order, the wife filed a criminal petition in the High Court, which granted an interim stay on further proceedings. This stay led to the husband filing the present Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including:

• Section 498A: “Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.”
• Section 120B: “Punishment of criminal conspiracy.”
• Section 420: “Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.”
• Section 365: “Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person.”

Additionally, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was invoked in the High Court:

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: “Saving of inherent powers of High Court.”

The Supreme Court’s order of July 16, 2019, which directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within two months, also forms a critical part of the legal framework.

Arguments

Petitioner (Husband):

• The husband argued that the wife was deliberately delaying the trial by using various tactics.
• He contended that despite a Supreme Court order to complete the trial within two months, the wife was protracting the proceedings.
• The husband highlighted that the wife had consented to the two-month timeline for the trial.
• He also pointed out that the wife had filed a petition in the High Court to recall witnesses after their examination was complete, which was a delaying tactic.

Respondent (Wife):

• The wife claimed that she was not responsible for the delay in the trial.
• She argued that the delay was due to other factors and not her actions.
• She contended that the application to recall witnesses was necessary due to the supplementary charge-sheet.

State (Prosecutor):

• The State, through the Assistant Public Prosecutor, filed an application to reopen evidence and recall PWs 1 to 4.
• The State argued that the supplementary charge-sheet necessitated the recall of witnesses.

Innovativeness of the argument: The husband’s argument was innovative in that it highlighted the wife’s alleged breach of the consent order of the Supreme Court. The wife’s argument was innovative in that she sought to rely on the supplementary charge sheet as a ground to recall witnesses.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the following:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in granting a stay of further proceedings in the criminal case, despite the Supreme Court’s order to complete the trial within two months.
2. Whether the Contempt Petition should be entertained given the circumstances of the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with cruelty to a married woman by her husband or his relatives.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section pertains to the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section saves the inherent powers of the High Court.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court viewed the order of the Supreme Court dated 16.07.2019 as binding and emphasized that the High Court should not have passed an order that went against it.
• The Court acknowledged the relevance of Section 498A, Section 120B, Section 420 and Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as the basis of the criminal complaint.
• The Court viewed Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as the provision under which the High Court granted the stay, which was later set aside by the Supreme Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s primary concern was the delay in the trial, especially after its order on July 16, 2019, which mandated the trial’s conclusion within two months. The Court expressed its displeasure at the dragging of the proceedings, noting that the State, the Trial Court, and the High Court had failed to take note of the time frame fixed by the Supreme Court. The Court also emphasized that attempts to overreach an order passed by consent should be discouraged. The Court was also concerned about the fact that the prosecution had sought to recall witnesses after their examination was over, which the Court viewed as a delaying tactic. The Court’s decision was driven by the need to ensure that the trial was concluded expeditiously, and that the order of the Supreme Court was not undermined.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that the High Court had the power to grant a stay order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, noting that the High Court’s order was in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s direction for a speedy trial. The Court emphasized that its order of July 16, 2019, was a consent order and that any attempt to overreach it should be discouraged. The Court’s final decision was to set aside the High Court’s stay order and direct the Trial Court to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

The Supreme Court’s decision is clear and accessible. The Court emphasized the need for a speedy trial and set aside the High Court’s stay order. The Court also directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial from the stage where it was interrupted by the stay order. The Court’s decision is based on the principle that orders of the Supreme Court should be respected and that attempts to overreach them should be discouraged.

The reasons for the decision are:

• The High Court’s stay order was in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s order to complete the trial within two months.
• The State’s application to recall witnesses was a delaying tactic.
• The Supreme Court’s order of July 16, 2019, was a consent order and should not have been undermined.
• The need for a speedy trial in criminal cases.

Key quotes from the judgment:

• “Apart from the party/parties responsible for protracting the proceedings, it is unfortunate that the State, the Trial Court as well as the High Court have also omitted to take note of the time frame fixed by this Court.”
• “Suffice it to point out that any attempt to overreach an order of this Court passed by consent should be discouraged and deprecated.”
• “The Trial Court is directed to proceed further with the trial of the criminal case, from the stage where it got struck due to the stay order of the High Court. The Trial Court may endeavour to dispose of the matter within a period of two months.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of its own order and the need to ensure that its directions are followed. The Court applied the principle that orders of the Supreme Court should be respected and that attempts to overreach them should be discouraged. The Court’s decision was also influenced by the need for a speedy trial in criminal cases. The implications for future cases are that High Courts should be cautious when passing orders that may conflict with the orders of the Supreme Court, especially in cases where the Supreme Court has given specific directions for a speedy trial. The Supreme Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles in this case.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should not pass orders that conflict with the Supreme Court’s directions, especially regarding timelines for trial completion.
• Attempts to overreach consent orders of the Supreme Court will be discouraged.
• The Supreme Court emphasizes the need for speedy trials in criminal cases.
• Parties should avoid using delaying tactics in court proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• The High Court’s stay order in Criminal Petition No. 896 of 2020 was set aside.
• The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial from the stage where it was interrupted by the High Court’s stay order.
• The Trial Court was directed to endeavour to dispose of the matter within a period of two months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts should not grant stay orders that conflict with the directions of the Supreme Court, especially those pertaining to the timeline of trials. This case reinforces the importance of respecting the orders of the Supreme Court and ensuring speedy trials. There is no change in the previous position of law but an emphasis on the importance of complying with the Supreme Court’s orders.

Conclusion

In the case of T.S.K. Ashwin Kumar vs. Tubati Srivalli & Ors., the Supreme Court addressed the issue of delays in a criminal trial arising from a matrimonial dispute. The Court set aside the High Court’s stay order, emphasizing the need for timely justice and compliance with Supreme Court directives. The judgment underscores the importance of respecting the orders of the Supreme Court and ensuring that trials are conducted expeditiously.

Category

• Family Law
  • Matrimonial Disputes
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Contempt of Court
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 365, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the T.S.K. Ashwin Kumar vs. Tubati Srivalli & Ors. case?
A: The main issue was the delay in a criminal trial arising from a matrimonial dispute, particularly after the Supreme Court had directed the trial to be completed within two months.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s stay order and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial expeditiously. The Court also closed the Contempt Petition without going into the rival contentions.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s stay order?
A: The Supreme Court set aside the stay order because it was in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s earlier order to complete the trial within two months. The Court emphasized that High Courts should not pass orders that undermine the directions of the Supreme Court.

Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment?
A: The key takeaways are that High Courts should not pass orders that conflict with the Supreme Court’s directions, attempts to overreach consent orders of the Supreme Court will be discouraged, and the Supreme Court emphasizes the need for speedy trials in criminal cases.

Q: What should parties do to avoid delays in court proceedings?
A: Parties should avoid using delaying tactics, cooperate with court directions, and ensure that they present all necessary information during their initial examinations.