Mehar Singh vs State of Haryana

A.S. Nehra, J.

Mehar Singh has filed this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called the Code) for quashing the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ambala.

Petitioner was employed as Cashier in Rattan Nari Cooperative Agriculture Service Society. A case under Section 408 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner in the police station Mullan vide F.I.R. No. 178 of 2nd of December, 1975 on the allegations that he had embezzled the funds of the society.

The challan was presented on 22nd September, 1976 and thereafter the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Petitioner has mentioned in para 4 of the petition that the prosecution took more than 16 years to lead evidence and ultimately closed its case on 10th December, 1973. He has further stated that the proceedings of this case were delayed for such a long time, for which the petitioner was not at all responsible in any way directly or indirectly. In para 5 of the petition, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is attending the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and only once, the bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled because some wrong date was noted and the petitioner could not be presented in the Court on the actual date of hearing. It is further mentioned that even then, after 10 days petitioner submitted fresh bail bond and that was the first and last incident when the petitioner could not attend the trial Court on the date fixed for hearing.

Petitioner has further mentioned in para 6 of the petitioner that although a period of more than 18 years has elapsed, yet the case against the petitioner has not been decided so far and that this inordinate delay in disposal of this case cannot be attributed to the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner by any stretch of imagination.

The petitioner has further submitted that the impugned F.I.R. and the resultant criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

Notice of this petition was given to the State of Haryana. Written statement on behalf of Shri K.P. Singh, IPS has been filed. In the written statement paras 2 and 3 have been admitted. In reply to para 4 of the petition, it has been submitted that the prosecution case was closed on 10th December, 1993 and not on 10th December, 1973. It has been further stated in para 4 of the reply that it is incorrect that the proceedings in the Court were delayed due to any lapse on the part of the prosecution. In para 5 of the written statement, it has been stated that the petitioner absented himself thrice during the trial. It is further mentioned that nonbailable warrants of his arrest were issued on 1st October, 1981 and he surrendered in the Court on 18th March 1982; that again on 13th December, 1982, he did not appear in the Court and turned up only on 28th March, 1983; and that for the third time, he absented on 27th November, 1990 and thereafter he attended the Court only on 19th April, 1991. It is further mentioned that there had been long drawn strikes by the Lawyers at Ambala; that the Court work also remained suspended for a considerable long time because the records of the Court including the police file of the instant case had been destroyed during the violent agitation by students in connection with the Mandal Commission''s recommendations and that the delay is not attributable to the prosecution. It has been further stated in para 6 of the written statement that the prosecution was not wholly responsible for the delay in the proceedings and that the exceptional circumstances and the conduct of the accused petitioner also contributed to the delay. It is further submitted in the reply that the impugned F.I.R. and resultant criminal proceedings are not liable to be quashed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that the petitioner has not disclosed in his petition that he. absented from the Court thrice. The delay in this case has occurred due to the exceptional circumstances and because of the conduct of the petitioner. Petitioner absented thrice during the trial. The lawyers at Ambala remained on long strikes and the Court work also remained suspended for considerable long time. The record of the Court including the police file of this case was destroyed during the violent agitation by the students in connection with the Mandal Commission''s recommendations. Therefore, the delay in concluding the trial is not attributable to the prosecution. Petitioner has also contributed to the delay by his conduct.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.