SUSHILA DEVI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

SUSHILA DEVI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that its monitoring of investigation is permissible only until the investigation continues. Once the investigating agency completes investigation, files a charge-sheet, and trial commences before a competent court, further monitoring by Supreme Court is not warranted. From this point, the matter is exclusively within the domain of the trial court.

Parties
Petitioner: Sushila Devi; Respondent: State of Rajasthan and Ors.; Respondent: Satyanarayan Godara
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Application for Continued Monitoring After Charge Sheet and Commencement of Trial
Outcome
Applications disposed of; request for monitoring denied.
Legal Topics
Monitoring of Investigation, CBI Investigation, Post Charge Sheet Court Powers
Criminal Law Investigation Procedure Monitoring of Investigation CBI Investigation Post Charge Sheet Court Powers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sushila Devi

Petitioner

State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Respondent

Satyanarayan Godara

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Application for Continued Monitoring After Charge Sheet and Commencement of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should Supreme Court continue monitoring investigation after charge-sheet is filed and trial has commenced?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that its monitoring of investigation is permissible only until the investigation continues. Once the investigating agency completes investigation, files a charge-sheet, and trial commences before a competent court, further monitoring by Supreme Court is not warranted. From this point, the matter is exclusively within the domain of the trial court.

Court Disposition

Applications disposed of; request for monitoring denied.

Orders

  • It is not necessary for the Supreme Court to monitor the matter any further since the trial is in the domain of the competent court.
  • All pending applications seeking monitoring are disposed of.