Krishan Kumar vs State of Haryana

S.S. Grewal, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relates to quashment of impugned first information report dated 28.4.1979 under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City, Hissar, and consequent proceedings taken there under.

In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that petitioner are Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and that he ceased to be Sarpanch on 7.9.1967. After he ceased to be Sarpanch he engaged Har Singh and Balbir Singh Beniwal, Advocates of Sirsa, who acting on the strength of the power of attorney allegedly executed by the petitioner on 15th November, 1967 made statements before the Collector, Hissar on 6th of December, 1967. On the basis of the said statement, the Collector passed order dated 6th of December, 1967 allowing the sale of certain shamlat land at throw away price thereby cheating the Gram Panchayat of its valuable property. On the basis of the complaint impugned first information report No. 263 dated 19.7.1989 was registered against the petitioner under Section 379/201 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City, HIssar, alleging that the petitioner in connivance with SI Kashmiri Lal took away the police file of the aforesaid police case under Sections 419/420 IPC in the year 1981. It was next pleaded that the case against the petitioner is politically motivated, that on the basis of the impugned first information report dated 28.4.1979, challan has been presented in the year 1989 against the petitioner. It was, however, pleaded that no case is made out against the petitioner, as alleged, and continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of the process of the court.

The State in its reply admitted the registration of the case as well as the fact that after the investigation, the challan was presented in the court of Illaqa Magistrate on 19th of July, 1989. It was further pleaded that the delay in the investigation occurred due to un avoidable circumstances as the original file and documents of this case were misplaced by SI Kashmiri Lal in connivance with Krishan Kumar petitioner, for which a separate first information report No. 263 dated 19.7.1989 under Section 379/201 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station City, Hissar. The said first information report was however quashed later on by this Court.

The learned Counsel for the parties were heard. In the instant case admittedly the impugned first information report was registered on 28.4.1979. The said first information report relates to alleged sale of shamlat land at throw away price in December, 1967 or there about. According to the allegations in the impugned first information report, Krishan Kumar petitioner, who had ceased to be Sarpanch on 7th of September, 1967, gave power of attorney on behalf of the Gram Panchayat to S/Sh. Har Singh and Balbir Singh Beniwal, Advocates and the latter made statements and acting on the strength of the aforesaid power of attorney, the said Advocates made statements before the Collector, Hissar on 6th of December, 1967 and the latter granted permission for the sale of shamlat land at throw away price. Challan in the said case, according to the State, was submitted in the court of Illaqa Magistrate, Hissar on 19th of July, 1989. The delay in presenting the challan is sought be explained mainly on the ground that the original file and documents of this case were misplaced by SI Kashmiri Lal, in connivance with Krishan Kumar petitioner, for which a separate first information report No. 263 was registered against him on 19.7.1989. That first information report too was quashed by this Court as per return filed by respondent No. 1. Even otherwise, it is quite obvious that the first information report concerning loss of police file and documents was itself filed on the very day, the challan was presented in court. From the material placed on the record, no plausible explanation concerning inordinate delay is forthcoming with regard to two salient features of this case :

(1) Delay of 12 years in lodging the impugned first information report with respect to the sale of shamlat land in December, 1967 or there about, and (2) Delay of about 10 years in completion of the investigation of the impugned first information report.

Thus, there has been inordinate and unexplained delay of 10 years in presenting the challan before the trial Court. The trial in respect of the impugned first formation report is also pending for more than three years. Admittedly, the impugned first information report No. 263 against the petitioner and SI Kashmiri Lal concerning loss of police file relating to the impugned first information report and other documents, has been quashed in Criminal Misc. No. 2557 of 1990 filed by SI Kashmiri Lal, by G.S. Chahal, J. on 14th of January, 1991. As such, the loss of police file or documents or delay in completion of the investigation relating to the impugned first information report cannot be legally attributed to the petitioner. From the circumstances of the case, it is quite obvious that the petitioner had suffered agony of trial during this long period without any fault or reason which could be attributed to him. Thus the inordinate delay and prolonged delay in investigation and trial in circumstances of the case, amounts to abuse of the process of the court. I find support in my view from the Full bench Authority of Patna High Court in Madeshwardhari Singh and another v. State of Bihar, 1988 Cr. L.J. 1771, wherein it was observed as under :

"The right of a speedy public trial is now an inalienable fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. It has further been ruled that a callous and inordinately, prolonged delay of seven years or more (which does not arise from the default of the accused or is otherwise not occasioned by any extraordinary of exceptional reason) in investigation and original constitutional guarantee of a speedy public trial under Article 21 of the Constitution."

Perusal of the impugned first information report merely shows that after the petitioner ceased to be Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, he gave power of attorney to S/Sh. Har Singh and Balbir Singh Beniwal, Advocates, for Gram Panchayat Elanabad. The aforesaid counsel are alleged to have made statements before the Collector Hisar on 6th of December, 1967 and on the basis of the said statement, the Collector, Hisar, granted permission for the sale of some shamlat land. The allegations in the first information report do not prima facie constitute any offences of cheating as contemplated under Section 419 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Neither any specific allegations were made in the impugned first information report that the petitioner has dishonestly induced any person who was cheated either to deliver him property, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, as held on the Apex Court in Tulsi Ram and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 666.

In the absence of specific allegations concerning essential ingredients, obvious no prima facie case for commission of offence of cheating punishable under Section 419 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code, has been made out from the allegations set out in the impugned first information report. The impugned first information report is thus liable to be quashed on this score, as well.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned first information report and the consequent proceedings taken thereunder are hereby quashed. This petition is accordingly allowed.