Ram Parshad and Others vs The State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.—The present petition has been field u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani relating to F.I.R. Nos. 80 and 82 dated 1-6-1968 u/s 409, 467, 468, 477, 477B, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The facts :-

The petitioners were employees of Bhiwani Rajputana Thola Ram Singh Co-operative Agricultural Service Society and the Bhiwani Central Co-operative Bank. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies Hissar wrote two letters to the Superintendent of Police, Hissar on 1-6-1968 on the basis of which two cases bearing F.I.R. Nos. 80 and 82 were registered at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani against the petitioners and others. About 15 challans were produced in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani against the petitioners on the basis of those two cases. In the year 1972 an application was moved to withdraw the criminal cases against one Anguri Lal, petitioner on the ground that there was only civil liability against him.

The Judicial Magistrate Bhiwani gave permission to the prosecuting agency for withdrawal of the case against Anguri Lal vide his order dated 24-8-1973. The cases were, however, committed to Sessions Judge for trial vide order dated 3-1-1977. The Sessions Judge dropped the proceedings and sent the cases back to Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani for getting sanction from the competent authority to prosecute the petitioners. On 30-12-1978 the Judicial Magistrate passed an order to the effect that the case may be kept in abeyance as the proceedings had already been dropped by the learned Sessions Judge but that would not amount to any acquittal or discharge of the accused. The Ahlmad was directed to keep the file with him till police furnished a proper sanction for the prosecution of the accused. The proceedings remained in abeyance till the year 1988 when the petitioners were summoned by the court for their trial.

The petitioners averred that the cases were registered against them on 1-6-1968 and the prosecution had not cared to submit all the documents to the court for about 20 years. No sanction for their prosecution was still obtained. The sentence for all the offences alleged to have been committed by them was not more than 10 years but they had already suffered agony for more than 20 years. This itself was a sufficient ground for quashing the proceedings.

No return has been filed by the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that two cases were registered against the petitioners on 1-6-1968 and as all the documents had not been produced along with the challan, the proceedings in the cases were dropped in the year 1978. The prosecution was directed to furnish sanction and then to move for starting proceedings again but till 1988 no sanction was filed nor any action was taken in the matter. A period of more than 20 years had elapsed and no proceedings had been taken against the petitioners, this itself was a sufficient ground for quashing the proceedings because the petitioners were not in any way responsible in causing this delay. It was asserted that speedy trial was the essence of justice and delay in the trial itself constituted failure of justice.

Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that charges against the petitioners were quite serious and they were alleged to have embezzled amount of the Cooperative Agricultural Service Society. It took time to investigate the case and complete formalities. A mere delay did not furnish any justification for quashing the proceedings.

A perusal of the file shows that the petitioners have not produced copy of the order passed by learned Sessions Judge Bhiwani whereby proceedings were dropped but the order of the Judicial Magistrate Bhiwani dated 30-12-1978 has been reproduced in the petition. According to this order the proceedings were kept in abeyance in pursuance of the order passed by the Sessions Judge on 3-1-1977 as the police had not filed documents and the sanction required in the case for taking proceedings against the petitioners. The order was not assailed by the prosecution nor any effort was made to comply with the order and to furnish the required sanction if any. Prosecution has also failed to show as to how the proceedings have been revived after a lapse of ten years of the passing of the order by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. The delay in this case was entirely caused by the prosecution and the petitioners had not contributed to the same in-any manner. The case remained pending for the last more than 20 years. In the case Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana 1990 (1) RCR 383, the allegations against the accused were regarding embezzlement of Panchayat fund. The case was of ordinary nature but challan was presented 10 years after registration of the case. The accused had not contributed in any manner to the dealy in presentation of the challan. It was observed that the accused suffered harrowing burden of prolonged investigation. Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteed a right to speedy trial by a fair, just and reasonable procedure and inordinate unexplained delay entitled the accused to unconditional release. Similarly in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh 1990 (1) RCR 580 where a case u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code remained pending for 12 years, the acquittal of the accused was upheld on that ground alone. The petitioners'' in this case have suffered agony of the trial for more than 20 years and they have undergone sufficient expenses, strain and harassment. So this delay alone furnishes a valid ground for granting the relief claimed by them.

For the abovementioned reasons I allow this petition and quash all the proceedings pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani arising out of F.I.R. Nos. 80 and 82 (Annexure P1 and Annexure P2).