Anand vs State of Kerala

K. Ramakrishnan, J.—This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 614/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada for speedy disposal of the case under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is arrayed as accused in C.C. No. 614/2012 pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada which originated on the basis of Crime No. 180/2012 of Kattakada police station registered on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant against seven accused persons including the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and the case is now pending as C.C. No. 614/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada. On account of the pendency of the case, he is not able to pursue his employment in abroad and the pendency of the case is also affecting the possibility of getting good employment as well. According to him, he has been falsely implicated in the case and unless the case is disposed of at the earliest, he will be put to hardship. So, he has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:

To issue an appropriate direction or order, directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada to dispose of C.C. No. 614/2012 within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court.

Considering the nature of relief claimed in the petition, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor and calling for a report from the concerned court.

Accordingly, earlier a report has been called for and the magistrate has sent a report dated 26.05.2014 which reads as follows:

Inviting kind attention to the references cited, I humbly submit the following report for kind consideration. This case arose on a final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kattakada Police Station, in crime No. 180/12 alleging offences punishable U/Ss. 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 354 of IPC against accused 7 in nos. Now the case posted for appearance of all accused on 3.6.14 and summons issued to them. There are 8 witnesses in this case and trial in this case is not yet started. Further the service of Prosecutor is available in this court only on Mondays and Thursdays in a week.

In these circumstances it is submitted that three months time may please be granted to dispose the case.

Since the accused including the petitioner have not appeared before the court, this court at that stage felt that without procuring the presence of the accused giving direction to the magistrate will be of no use and subsequently asked for a further report and the learned magistrate sent a further report dated 07.06.2014 which reads as follows:

Summons were served to all the accused persons. But none of them entered appearance on 3.6.14. In that circumstance non-bailable warrant was issued on 3.6.14 and the case adjourned to 13.6.14 for execution of warrant.

Again on 09.06.2014, the learned magistrate sent an another report which reads as follows:

Accused nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 in the above case advanced the case on today in the afternoon session (9.6.14) and entered appearance and moved bail application. Accordingly bail granted to all except A-4. The case adjourned to 13.6.14 for execution of warrant of A-4.

Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and considered the reports of the learned magistrate.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of the pendency of this case, he is not able to go abroad to get employment though employment opportunities are coming to him and he will not get passport or visa due to the pendency of the case. Further, even if he applies for employment in India, the pendency of the case may be a stigma for getting good employment as well. So, he wants an early disposal of the case either way.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that since the appearance of the accused has not been procured so far, there is no necessity to issue any direction to dispose of the case at the earliest as claimed by the petitioner as even old cases than this case are pending before this court for long time.

It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant, Crime No. 180/2012 of Kattakada Police Station was registered against six named persons including the present petitioner and two identifiable persons as Ext. P1 First Information Report alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that after investigation, Ext. P2 Final Report was filed against seven accused persons including the present petitioner showing the accused persons as absconding. Now, it is seen from the report that after the final report is filed, it was taken on file as C.C. No. 614/2012 and pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada and it is seen from the earlier report that, even for sending summons to an accused, it has taken two years, that may be due to the pendency of number of cases before that court. It is also seen from the subsequent reports that except accused No. 4, others appeared and they were released on bail on 09.06.2014 and warrant has been issued against 4th accused and now it is posted to 13.06.2014 for return of warrant against 4th accused.

It is true that Constitution of India mandates speedy trial as a fundamental right as far an accused is concerned, who has been implicated in a criminal case and facing trial. But, the courts are not able to implement the same in full letter and spirit of the Constitution because of the over burden on each court due to pendency of large number of cases which is beyond the capacity of the Judicial Officer to dispose of. At the same time, it cannot be taken as a ground for postponing the case of an accused who comes before the court and seeks for the relief of speedy disposal which according to him, is required for settlement in his life and to procure employment. It is true that if a person is involved in a crime, it is very difficult for him to get a better employment as it is a stigma in his life. So, he is having every right to see that the case is disposed of either way and if he get some honourable acquittal, then, the stigma will go and he can pursue for his better employment to settle down in life in future. This is the grievance of the petitioner in this case as on account of the pendency of the case, he is not been able to go abroad and get better employment either in India or abroad. The anguish of the petitioner cannot be said to be not genuine. So, under the circumstances, this court feels that even though this court is very well aware of the burden cast on the presiding officers in disposing the cases, giving direction to the court below to expedite the trial of the case within a time frame will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice.

So, the petition is disposed of as follows:

The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kattakada is directed to take all earnest steps to procure the presence of all the accused persons to proceed with the trial of the case and dispose of the same within a period of five months from the date of order and if it is not possible within a reasonable time to procure the presence of 4th accused, then, proceed with the case of other accused persons and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible within the above time. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.

With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of.