The Supreme Court on January 8 expressed deep anguish over a 23-year delay in hearing a criminal revision linked to a dowry death case, calling the litigation “disturbing” and an “eye-opener” for courts across the country. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the accused family members, the court ordered a detailed inquiry into how such a prolonged delay was allowed to happen
Background of the Case
The case relates to the death of Deepa, who was married to Vijay Kumar in November 2000. Within a year, on December 31, 2001, she died at her matrimonial home under mysterious circumstances.
Read also:- Private Client or State Duty? Allahabad High Court Flags Role of Govt Advocate in Ongoing Case
An FIR was registered in January 2002 at Ajmer under Sections 498A (cruelty for dowry) and 304B (dowry death) of the Indian Penal Code, based on a complaint by her brother, who alleged harassment and poisoning.
Police filed a charge sheet against seven family members. When the trial court framed charges in November 2002, the accused approached the Rajasthan High Court in revision. Proceedings were stayed in 2003 - and remained stalled for over two decades.
Read also:- 67 Days Too Long: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MPDA Detention, Cites Liberty Concerns
Court’s Observations
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, noted that the High Court took nearly 23 years to finally decide the revision petition.
“This litigation is very disturbing. What we are about to record is something very painful,” the Bench observed, questioning why a sensitive matter involving an alleged dowry death was left unheard for so long.
The court said prolonged stays in serious criminal cases reduce justice to a “mockery,” stressing that fairness must extend not just to the accused, but also to victims and their families.
Read also:- Abuse and Character Assassination of Wife at Workplace Is Mental Cruelty, Rules Calcutta High Court
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP at the threshold, holding that there was no legal error in the High Court’s decision rejecting the revision petition.
However, refusing to let the matter rest there, the Bench directed the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court to submit the complete case record and detailed data on criminal revisions pending and disposed of over the years.
Notices were also ordered to be circulated to all High Courts, urging prompt disposal of cases where interim orders stall criminal trials
Case Title: Vijay Kumar & Others v. State of Rajasthan
Case Number: SLP (Cr.) Diary No. 71965 of 2025
