Randhir Singh vs State of M.P.

Shubhada R. Waghmare, J.—By this petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant-Randhir Singh has prayed for quashment of the order dated 30-4-2013 passed by the JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case No. 773/04, rejecting the application filed by the applicant u/s 245 of the Cr.P.C. for discharging the applicant from offence under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC registered against him. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution was that Police Station, Rajendra Nagar was proceeding against the accused in Crime No. 163/81 and the FIR had been filed and crime was registered at No. 178/81 for offence under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Considering the First Information Report and the final report of the investigation, there was no other documents available and the Presiding Officer of the previous Court had directed the Police Superintendent, Indore to file the documents available with the Investigating Agency, however, there was no document filed till date; despite which the Trial Court on 16-1-2007 continued to frame the charge against the applicant from offence under Sections 419, 467 and 468 of the IPC against the applicant and thereafter the matter was listed for the evidence of the prosecution witness. Being aggrieved the accused petitioner had filed an application u/s 245 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge, however the Trial Court refused to do so; stating that since the offences had already been recorded against the applicant it would not be possible to discharge the accused. And hence the present petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C..

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that according to the instructions received by him from the accused : for last 32 years; the Superintendent of Police had failed to file any documents up to 30-4-2013 despite directions from the Trial Court to produce the documents, the Superintendent of Police had not filed a single document up to today. Moreover, from the final report, it was indicated that the Investigating Agency did not want to proceed against the applicant. And since the offence was so old, an application had been filed on behalf of the applicant vide Annexure P-3 for discharge, which has been rejected by the Trial Court by the order impugned.

Counsel vehemently urged the fact that the applicant is now 67 years of age and the date of the incident is 24-3-1978. The challan was put up on 5-12-1981 and nothing has been done till today. Counsel relied on P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, to state that when there was a case of breach of fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, the High Court had inherent powers to terminate the criminal proceedings and the Court held that speedy trial is the right of every accused under Arts. 21, 32, 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India. He also relied on Kaushlya Devi (Smt.) v. State of M.P., reported in 2003 (II) MPWN 102, to state that when there was no relevant material available to connect the applicant in crime, framing of charge is offending against the right of the accused under Article 21 and may be quashed by the High Court. Relying on Dhananjaya Vs. State of M.P., Counsel stated that although the powers should be exercised sparingly in rarest of rare cases to quash criminal charge or proceedings, it can be done when there is no evidence to constitute an offence as alleged. Finally, Counsel relied on Vinod Kumar Rajput Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Counsel submitted that under similar circumstances, for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with Section 120B and 415 of IPC, the Court had come to the conclusion that the case did not fall u/s 415 of the IPC and conspiracy is not proved even by circumstantial evidence and the charges were quashed.

Counsel prayed that in the instant case also, prima facie, there was nothing on record to show that the applicant was involved in the offence as alleged and there was no evidence of forging any document intentionally or deliberately by the applicant. Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set side in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the respondent-State, per contra, has filed an affidavit of Shri Kamlesh Sharma, Inspector, Thana Prabhari, P.S. Rajendra Nagar, Indore to indicate that on directions to the Sub-Inspector, Shri R.S. Pal, P.S. Rajendra Nagar, Indore the affidavit has been filed since he is the newly appointed Investigating Officer. Shri Kamlesh Sharma has filed the said affidavit and stated that the offence is registered at No. 178/81 and is quite old. The final report and challan papers were filed on the basis of final report and registered at No. 163/81 and the case diary had also been produced in the Trial Court on the basis of which the charges were framed; the case diary had been returned to the Police Station, Rajendra Nagar. However, curiously enough the case diary is not available with the Police Station, Rajendra Nagar, Indore and it is not traceable. He had also admitted on affidavit that there are no more papers available with the Police Station u/s 245 of the Cr.P.C.. The charges had been framed by the Trial Court against the accused-Randheersingh as well as co-accused Motiram on 16-1-2007. Moreover, the offence pertain to Forest Department and the accused have been alleged to have illegally stolen valuable wood of the Forest Department by manipulating the documents and a separate enquiry has also been conducted by the Forest Department and hence Counsel for the respondent State has vehemently urged that the petition be dismissed since merely on the grounds of delay the accused cannot be discharged. The evidence has still to be led and he stated that the applicant did not deserve any sympathy. Counsel prayed that the petition be dismissed.

On considering the above submissions, I find that the applicant is 67 years of age today. It is regretted that despite admission by Shri Kamlesh Sharma, there are no other documents available with the police. The Trial Court wants to proceed in the matter. Considering the case of P. Ramachandra Rao (supra), I find that the Apex Court has also expressed regret that there is no limitation, which bars termination of trial or some proceedings and very few provisions are made in the Criminal Procedure Code to protect the interest of the accused and save him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. The Apex Court has also referred to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. to state that although the Trial Court has empowered with wide powers, they can be exercised only in the summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint. However, the High Court has wide powers u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of the FIR and investigation and terminating the criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law is clearly made out. The Court has held that such power can certainly be exercised on a case being made out to be in breach of fundamental right conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and under Article 21, the High Court can take care in due or inordinate delay in criminal matter proceedings if they remain pending for too long and putting an end, by making appropriate orders, to further proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.

Moreover, the Trial Court has also failed to take any effective steps in prosecuting the matter for 32 years. The petition has also been pending before this High Court for more than one year and the Trial Court to proceed against the applicant especially in the light of the fact that no documents are available with the Investigating Agency except the FIR, which is not a substantial piece of evidence and final report, which at the most could indicate the commission of an offence, but cannot be called to evidence. I find that it is a fit case for quashment of the proceedings. I also find that there is no relevant material available to connect the applicant in crime on the basis of the FIR and the final report the police registered the offence, but unfortunately, there are no other documents available, therefore, proceedings against the applicant would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. The petition needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. Besides all the authorities relied on by the Counsel clearly indicated that the petition is maintainable u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C.. The impugned order registering offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC against the applicant and rejecting the application of the accused for discharge is hereby quashed. The applicant is discharged.

The petition is allowed to the extent herein above indicated.