Trial courts shouldn’t resort to dismissal to boost numbers

This is unmindful of the fact that criminal justice system is the duty of the State to secure victim justice irrespective of the complainant’s cooperation or otherwise. 

Justice M.Venugopal of the Madras High Court, has rightly held in a case that the magistrates ought not to dismiss a case summarily due to non-appearance of the complainant. The said case was pending for 10 years before Chidambaram Magistrate Court, which dismissed the case as the complainant, Shakthivel, was absent when his case was taken up. It is important to note that the trial court judges have to submit their disposal rates periodically to the higher judiciary for scrutiny. Long pending cases reflect badly on the judge before whom such cases are pending indefinitely. Therefore, the Magistrates need to somehow dispose of the cases, lest they be penalised. 

Magistrate Courts are always overworked, overcrowded and under-staffed. These lead to the magistrates being reckless and choosing to use short cut methods to demonstrate their disposal statistics – the numbers game which is essential to showcase their efficiency or otherwise. 

Routine, mindless disposal techniques are common sight in Magistrate Courts. The Magistrates do not even have the time to look up to find out whether the remanded accused has any injuries on their person or the patience to enquire about when and where the accused was secured as mandated by the Criminal Procedure Code. Gross human rights abuses could be stalled if only the magistrates act as per their mandate. 

Stay orders secured from the High Court even when vacated, is not brought to the knowledge of the magistrate. I know of a case in CC/0004270 of 2001 in XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet. The 2001 case was routinely adjourned, despite the stay being vacated as early as May 2012 by the High Court. Routine adjournments on the belief that the case continues to be stayed by the higher court is common. Neither the Public Prosecutor nor the defense lawyers or the Court staff bring the fact of the stay being vacated to the magistrate, who also routinely adjourns the case without applying his mind. Only when a party to the case wanted some documents in the case and moved the High Court for the same, was the order vacating the stay came to be known. Such is the sad state of affairs in the courts that there is no methodical appraisal system by which communication of orders are transmitted to the trial courts from the high courts. 

Proper training, good infrastructure, adequate staff, constant scrutiny, effective communication, prompt transfer of records are essential for the magistrates to ensure that they do not use shortcut methods to show disposal rates. Dismissal of Shakthivel’s private complaint by the magistrate is like the legendary Narada’s commotion that could lead to some reform in the trial courts’ judiciary to render substantive and not instant justice by shortcut means.