Apex Court refuses to entertain pleas seeking guidelines for compensation to victims of wrongful prosecution

Share on:

The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain two separate pleas seeking directions to the govt. to border guidelines for compensation to victims of wrongful prosecution and to confirm strict action against fake complainants in criminal cases.

A bench of Justices U.U. Lalit and S.R. Bhat said the problem involves lawmaking and can create lots of complications.

"The nature of relief prayed for is within the realm of laying down guidelines or within the nature of the legislation. it'll not be possible for this court to utilise its processes. the eye of the Union of India and relevant agencies are invited to the case portrayed within the kind of a petition. it's now left to concerned agencies or instrumentalities to require appropriate action. We, therefore, see no reason to entertain any more. The wit petitions are disposed of," the bench said.

Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing within the matter, submitted that there aren't any safeguards just in case of malicious prosecution.

The top court on March 23, 2021, while issuing notice to the Centre on one in every of the pleas filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay and BJP leader Kapil Mishra, had refused to issue notices to the states and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

Mr. Upadhyay had sought directions to the Centre, all States, and Union Territories to border and implement guidelines to compensate victims of "wrongful prosecution" through government machinery.

Mr. Mishra, in his plea filed through advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey, had sought directions to the Centre for framing guidelines to make sure strict action against fake complainants in criminal cases and for compensating victims of such wrongful prosecutions.

The petitions were filed within the apex court within the backdrop of a case during which the Allahabad court had in January declared a person, earlier convicted during a rape case and jailed for around 20 years, innocent observing that the motive behind the FIR was associated with a land dispute.