The Kerala High court ruled that any party seeking relief from the court cannot be denied it because of the court staff’s failure to ensure compliance with the regulations.
In a recent case, CP Pappachan v. State of Kerala & Anr., the Kerala High Court ordered the State’s subordinate courts to abide by Rules 28 and 29 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which demand that all complaints and petitions submitted to the court be sealed and that the appropriate court fees have been paid.
After seeing that many complaints and petitions filed with the court lack a seal as required by Section 28 of the Criminal Rules of Practice or fail to pay court costs, Justice A Badharudeen issued the directive.
“As required by Rule 28, it has been observed that many complaints and petitions submitted to this Court lack a seal. Similar to this, failing to note the court fee due in a petition submitted to a criminal court is a severe offense. As a result, the ruling instructed all subordinate courts to adhere strictly to Rules 28 and 29 of the Criminal Rules of Practice without fail.
According to the concept of Actus curiae neminem gravabit, the court’s acts cannot be used as a justification for denying remedy to any person who is a party to the case, the court further stated.
No one will be harmed as a result of the Kerala High Court’s decision
It is established law that a party that feels wronged cannot sue the court for any errors that occurred. The saying “Actus curiae neminem gravabit” sums up the above-described concept. This indicates that no one will be harmed as a result of the Court’s decision. The court determined in its decision that it has a responsibility to avenge the wrong in such a situation.
The petitioner was an accused party in the case, and the court was debating a plea that contested an order made by a magistrate court.
Even though no plea was submitted to excuse the complainant’s delay, the petitioner claimed that the Magistrate court judgment had excused the delay in filing. Additionally, it was argued that the accused had not received proper notice or cause.
He further sought to have any legal actions taken against him by the Magistrate court dismissed on this basis. The petitioner’s attorney argued that the delay petition was not sealed and that the court fee had not been paid.
Rule 28 (Date stamping of papers and starting of FIR by Magistrates) and Rule 29 (Cancellation of stamps) of the Criminal Rules of Practice had not been followed, it was contended, making the delay petition a fabrication.
The Court did note that the petitioner had received notice from the magistrate on the day the complaint was filed, but despite receiving that notice, the petitioner did not appear in court. As a result, acting on the claims made in the affidavit, the delay petition was granted, and the delay was ultimately excused. Not until then was cognizance established.
The court dismissed the petition because it had no validity.
