High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohan Krishen vs State

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 1 May 1984 · Citation: (1984) SriLJ 165

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.Khalid, C.J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Procedure Code, 1989 — Section 561A
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision application under Section 561-A
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 399 words
1.

This is an application filed under Section 561A Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Srinagar, titled State

Versus Mohan Krishen. The facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the petition can be stated as follows:

2.

A challan under Section 409/420/465 R. P. C. was presented against the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, Jammu on 2081971. No

evidence has so far been adduced in this .case. The petitioner took ill and was under the treatment of a leading heart Specialist. He has produced

Annexures I and II to show his state of health.

3.

The petitioner moved this court for transfer of the case from Sessions Judge. Jammu to the Sessions Jude Srinagar. This was allowed. The

State, thereafter, filed an application to transfer the case back to Jammu. It was dismissed, in the meantime it was discovered that certain

documents produced by the prosecution were missing. These missing records have not still been detected. Till now the case has been .getting

adjourned from time to time without any appreciable progress. The petitioner submit that he had been suffering the agony of this protracted trial for

the last 13 years.

4.

The Advocate General has filed a brief counter stating that it was on account of the request by the petitioner to transfer the case from Jammu to

Srinagar that the delay in the disposal of the case was occasion

5.

I do not purpose to enter into the merits of the case. The fact that stares the eyes in this case is that the case has been pending for nearly 13

years. There cannot be any justification for this long delay. This court had occasion to observe at one stage that the delay is not on account of the

accused. No explanation is necessary to accept the petitioner's case that he has been bedeviled by this long pendency. In Cr application No. 15 of

1983 Srinagar Law Journal at page 319. I quashed the proceedings in more or less identical circumstances. When I was told that the case was

pending for 14 years I hold that the delay itself amounted to abuse of the process of the court I follow The observations made by me in that case

and allow this application and quash the proceedings pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge. Srinaggr, in Gr. challan titled State Versus Mohan

Krishen.