Jagmohan Singh vs Vinod Kumar

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 23.11.1996 whereby their application for dismissal of the complaint was dismissed.

Petitioners filed an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that they are facing trial for the last 6 years which is now fixed for summoning of remaining accused. This prayer was made on the basis of the Apex Court judgment in Common Cause Registered Society v. Union of India and others, 1996(2) RCR(Crl.) 419 : 1996 Crl.L.J. 2380 .

The complainant contested the petition and submitted that the accused were summoned to face trial under Sections 148/149/452/323/506 IPC. Offence under Section 452 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a period of 7 years. Therefore, the judgment for Common Cause''s case (supra) does not apply in this case. It applies to those cases wherein the offence for which the accused persons are summoned/facing trial are punishable with imprisonment upto three years with or without fine.

Agreeing with the complainant''s averments, the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the accused persons.

During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners claimed discharge not only on the basis of the Apex Court judgment in Common Cause''s case (supra) but also on the ground that under Article 21 of the Constitution it is the fundamental right of every accused that there should be speedy trial of his case. If the case lingers on for years together then under Article 21 of the Constitution the accused persons are entitled to be discharged/acquitted on the ground of delay only.

The respondents''s learned counsel submitted that judgment in Common Cause''s case (supra) was inapplicable in this case. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has rightly held so.

This judgment in Common Cause case (supra) (1996 Crl.L.J. 2380) was again considered by the Apex Court in another Common Cause Registered Society v. Union of India, AIR 1997 S.C. 1539 wherein by way of clarification the Apex Court has held that in cases of warrant trials which are instituted otherwise than on police reports, such trials shall be treated to have commenced when charges are framed under Section 246 Cr.P.C.

The facts of the case are that respondent Vinod Kumar filed a complaint against the petitioners alongwith respondent No. 2 for an offence under Sections 307/325/324/323/148/149, 454 and 506 IPC. After recording evidence under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate summoned the accused persons for offences under Sections 148, 452, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC.

The accused side also lodged a report against the complainant Sukhdev Singh and Jagmohan wherein they explained the injuries sustained by the complainant. On their report, case under Sections 307/325/324/323/148/149 IPC was registered against the complainant and other members of his group. That Sessions case was pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Four witnesses in that case were already examined. Thereafter in connivance with the complainant, prosecution submitted an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the trial Judge and the prosecution was allowed to withdraw from the prosecution against complainant Vinod Kumar and others. Petitioner has challenged that order also which is subject matter of Cr. Revision No. 804 of 1992 (Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana). Petitioner''s learned counsel contended that since they were connected matters, they were clubbed together and were to be heard together. But today arguments were not heard in Crl. Revision No. 804 of 1992 and the case was adjourned. While arguments are being heard in this case. On all these grounds, he has prayed that this revision be allowed.

So far as Crl. Revision No. 804 of 1992 is concerned that relates to a different criminal case. According to the petitioners that may be a cross case of this case but they are two distinct cases and two different types of prayers were made in both the cases which were decided by the Courts by passing impugned orders. So far as this case is concerned, arguments are confined to the facts of this case only. Petitioner cannot take any help from the facts of the other case which will be considered in the aforesaid Crl. Revision No. 804 of 1992 when it will be heard and decided.

So far as this case is concerned complaint was lodged on 6.10.1990. Petitioners were summoned vide order dated 1.8.1991. Since then they are facing trial. The impugned order is passed on 23.11.1996. Till that time no progress is made in the case. The trial Court has rightly held that since the accused persons have summoned for an offence u/s 452 IPC which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to pay fine, the judgment in Common Cause''s case (supra) does not apply in such a case. In Common Cause''s case (supra), the Apex Court has taken care of all those cases which are punishable upto three years. The whole purpose of that judgment is that if accused are facing trial for minor offences for years together they should be discharged or acquitted by the trial Courts and should be relieved of the agony of long pending trials. In this judgment such like offences are not at all considered. The Apex Court has also made exception with regard to certain other serious type of offences and have categorised the offences with regard to the sentence with which they are liable to be punished. Since in this case, the petitioners are facing trial for an offence under Section 452 IPC, they cannot take help of the Apex Court judgment in Common Cause''s case (supra). Even under Article 21 of the Constitution, simply on the ground of delay, they cannot claim that they should have been discharged by the trial Court.

Considering the facts of the case, finding no merit in the revision petition, it is dismissed but the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months. Copies of the order be sent to the trial Court.