The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court issued observations highlighting the vital role of criminal courts in filtering out factually weak or flawed prosecutions at the stage when charges are submitted (challan stage), so as to prevent prolonged litigation and ensure timely delivery of justice. A Division Bench emphasised that courts should not adopt a passive approach simply because a challan has been presented; instead they should exercise judicial scrutiny when prima facie material is insufficient to sustain prosecution. The Court expressed concern over persistent delays in criminal adjudication, observing that mechanically admitting every prosecution forwarded by investigative agencies without evaluating the factual foundation contributes to sluggish judicial processes.
In the case before the Court, the petitioners had challenged the continuation of criminal proceedings on the ground that the charge-sheet (challan) lacked credible evidence to support the allegations and that the criminal complaint was factually fractured. They contended that the investigating agency had failed to gather evidence establishing essential elements of the offences alleged, and that proceeding with charges in the absence of a sound evidentiary basis would be unjust and wasteful of judicial resources. It was submitted that a court’s duty is not confined to a rote recording of prosecution versions but extends to examining whether the material in the challan discloses a prima facie case deserving adjudication.
The High Court agreed that judicial oversight at the challan stage is necessary to filter out frivolous or unsustainable prosecutions which, if allowed to proceed without early scrutiny, burden the judicial system and prolong litigation without corresponding prospects of accountability. The bench observed that courts must look into whether the basic ingredients of the offence are established on the face of the challan and whether the prosecution’s case is coherent and capable of standing trial. Where allegations lack a minimal threshold of credibility, the Court stated that it is the duty of the court to decline to entertain charges or to quash proceedings at an early stage.
The Court discussed the concept that while detailed evaluation of evidence is ordinarily the domain of trial courts during full trial, there remains scope at the challan stage to ascertain whether the prosecution case is founded on facts that are not inherently absurd, legally impossible, or devoid of substance. The High Court clarified that this exercise does not involve a mini trial or assessment of the merits of evidence in its entirety, but a judicial filter to prevent unnecessary continuation of prosecutions lacking prima facie strength.
The bench noted that where a prosecution is founded on speculative or equivocal material, proceeding to trial merely because a challan is filed undermines the objectives of fair and efficient justice. It underscored that judicial intervention at an early stage can prevent needless harassment of accused persons, save judicial time, and alleviate the backlog of pending cases. The Court emphasised that an early check against factually fractured prosecutions aligns with the constitutional mandate of fair procedure and the welfare of both victims and the accused.
In articulating its view, the High Court observed that courts must balance the need to uphold law and order with the imperative to ensure that only prosecutions with a legitimate factual basis proceed to trial. The bench underscored that dismissal or quashing of proceedings at the challan stage where prima facie material is absent should not be viewed as obstructing justice but rather as a measure to advance justice by eliminating baseless prosecutions.
The High Court’s remarks aim to encourage lower criminal courts to engage critically with challans and take proactive steps in screening out cases lacking substantive evidence before they evolve into protracted trials. It reflects judicial recognition of systemic challenges in criminal adjudication and offers direction to courts to exercise their powers to check factually deficient prosecutions at an early stage, thereby contributing to a more efficient and just criminal justice process. The observations signal a broader judicial intent to arrest snail-paced justice by ensuring that only viable prosecutions traverse the judicial gauntlet.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.