Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that "the filing of frivolous cases has a spiral effect on other litigations" and subsequently ordered the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs to exercise greater vigilance and sensitivity as to which cases to prosecute.

The court accordingly dismissed the plea of a woman who had sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the trial court acquitting a man in a false attempt to rape case from 2019. The woman had admitted before the trial court that her complaint was false and that it stemmed from a rent dispute.

In light of the said case, the bench presided over by Justice Amit Mahajan highlighted that the filing of such frivolous cases has a far-reaching, detrimental impact on the legal system. It not only clogs the courts with unnecessary litigation but also delays the hearing of genuine cases patiently awaiting their turn to be addressed," it added.

While cautioning the authorities to exercise due diligence, the court said, "Such delays undermine the efficiency of the judiciary, causing distress to litigants. Therefore, the prosecution and legal departments must exercise due diligence before initiating cases to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and ensure timely justice for those with legitimate grievances.".

The court further reiterated that the misuse of the legal process through frivolous litigation wastes judicial time. It stressed "that only meritorious cases should be before the court to avoid unnecessary burden on the judicial system"

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008) 9 SCC 475, the court emphasized the importance of independent corroboration. It pointed out that in the present case, the allegations rested solely on the prosecutrix’s statement, with no independent evidence to corroborate her claims.

Notably on November 27, 2012, during the proceedings before the Rohini Court, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) noted that the prosecutrix admitted in cross-examination that the real dispute was over rent and that a false complaint had been filed against the accused.

Therefore, the court upheld the judgment of the learned ASJ and noted that the prosecutrix, in her cross-examination, had admitted that a false case was filed.

Lastly, the court noted that although the present case qualifies as one where costs should be imposed for filing a frivolous case. However, it refrained from doing so and instead directed the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs to exercise greater vigilance and sensitivity in future case prosecutions.

Case Title: State vs Manpal