Prithi Ram alias Prithvi Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Kang, J.

This is a petition by Prithi Ram and Neki under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing proceedings pending against them in a case `State of Haryana v. Prithi Ram and Nekhi, under Sections 353, 332, 148, 149, 379, 341 and 506 IPC, FIR No. 11 dated 31.1.1969, Police Station Ratia, Tehsil Fatehabad, Distt. Hissar.

Briefly stated that facts of the case, as mentioned in the petition are :

Prithi Ram alias Prithvi Singh is son of Shri Mani Ram Godara, former Minister of Irrigation and Power in the State of Haryana and petitioner No. 2 is brotherinlaw of Shri Mani Ram Godara, who is an active political leader of the State of Haryana having remained an MLA, a Member of Parliament and a Minister. His elder brother Shri Pokar Ram was also a Minister in the State of Haryana.

Due to political enmity two false cases were registered against the petitioners and others on 31st January, 1969, in Police Station Ratia.

The first FIR No. 10, dated 31st January, 1969, was registered under Sections 379, 436 and 186, read with section 114 IPC and the second FIR No. 11, dated 31st January, 1969 was registered under Sections 353, 332, 148, 379, 341, 506, IPC. They relate to the same incident, though intentionally two cases were registered through two different first information reports.

Sat Pal, coaccused of the petitioners filed a petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing proceedings pending before the Magistrate in the challan case submitted on the basis of FIR No. 10 dated 31st January, 1969, abovementioned. This petition came up for hearing before S.S. Dewan, J. and was allowed on 31st October, 1980, and the proceedings started on the basis of FIR No. 10 were quashed. It may be mentioned that both FIRs No. 10 and 11 of 31st January, 1969 were registered on the statement of Shri Milkha Singh Station House Officer, Ratia. It is alleged that when Milkha sigh went to investigate the case FIR No. 10 dated 31st January, 1969, petitioners and their companions caught hold of Milkha Singh, threatened him, insulted and assaulted him.

It is alleged that initially investigations of both the cases i.e. F.I.Rs 10 and 11 was commenced by Shri Banarsi Dass, Station House Officer, Fatehabad under instructions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police who recorded the statements of the eye witnesses and other witnesses under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter the investigation of the cases was handed over to Shri Ram Chander Inspector (CIA Staff) who also recorded the statements of the eyewitnesses under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, during the investigation. Later on Ch. Dalip Singh, Deputy InspectorGeneral of Police, Ambala Range, himself investigated these cases and after a through investigation he came to the conclusion that the cases were false and the statements made by the witnesses were not rue. Consequently, on 19th July, 1969, the police recommended that the cases should be cancelled. Due to political pressure and extraneous consideration the cases were not submitted before a competent Magistrate.

In 1975 such a request was made but the same was declined by the learned Judicial Magistrate. He ordered further investigation was *116 worth the name was made during the next four years. In 1979, there was a change in the Government. The Chief Minister was hostile to the petitioners and their family. In order to humiliate and harass the petitioners an application was procured from Milkha Singh. SubInspector in the year 1979 (who had retired by this time) and investigation of the cases was started in 1979. The petitioners were arrested and they remained in custody for a number of days. They were later on released on bail. Now, the challan has been presented and is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Fatehabad. The State has not chosen to put in an affidavit controverting these allegations. Because of the lapse of time, the statements recorded by different investigating officers are not available and cannot be used by the petitioners for crossexamining these witnesses, thus denying them the most effective right to show that the prosecution case was false.

Criminal Misc. No. 2345M of 1980 was filed for quashing the case instituted on the basis of F.I.R. No. 10, dated 31st January, 1969, in similar circumstances. The same very arguments which has been raised before me were canvassed before the learned Judge. Relying upon a Supreme Court judgment in State of U.P. v. Kapil Deo Shukla, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 494, Dewan, J. observed :

"Now there is no doubt that the F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners in the year 1969 and the challan was presented in the Court on 4th September, 1979. The charge was framed against them in the year 1980 and 29th May, 1980, was fixed for further proceedings. To allow the criminal proceedings to continue further after a long lapse of time about 11 years from the date of alleged commission of offence would, in my opinion, amount to permitting a Court proceeding to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and would not at this stage, achieve any purpose. On the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, such continuance constitutes gross abuse of process of Court. It is thus imperative for securing the ends of justice that the criminal proceeding should no longer be allowed to stand and must be quashed.

The above observations fully apply to facts of the present case. The result of this ordinate delay in not putting in the challan for more than 10 years is to deprive the petitioners of an opportunity to effectively crossexamine the witnesses. After a long period of time the memory of the witnesses is likely to fade. Such circumstances were likely to prevent the trial being altogether fair.

Mr. B.S. Pawar, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the State, has strenously argued that the facts of F.I.R. No. 10 were different from the facts of the case arising out of F.I.R. No. 11 and the judgment in Criminal Misc. No. 2346M of 1980 (supra) is of no help. There is no merit in this contention. The decision in the abovementioned case by Dewan, J. does not rest on the merits of the facts of case F.I.R. No. 10. The inordinate delay and its consequent results, it seems, weighed. with the learned Judge and not the facts of the case.

It was then contended by Shri Pawar that the delay by was caused by the petitioners and their coaccused. This argument is also without merit. No affidavit in support of this assertion has been filed on behalf of the State. Even otherwise it is unimaginable that the accused could prevent the prosecution for filing the challan in court for ten long years. Respectfully following the decision of Dewan, J. in Criminal Misc. No. 2346M of 1980. I allow this petition and quash the proceedings in the case State of Haryana v. Prithi Ram and Neki under Section 353, 332, 149, 379, 341 and 506, IPC F.I.R. No. 11 dated 31.1.1969 Police Station Ratia, Tehsil Fatehabad now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad, District Sirsa.

JUDGMENT accordingly.