Tikka Balbir Singh Bedi vs State of Haryana

S.S. Kang, J.

Tikka Balbir Singh Bedi has filed this petition under section 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code'') for quashing the proceeding in case State v. Tikka Balbir Singh Bedi, under sections 379/430, Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Sonepat.

Briefly stated the facts of this case are that Shri Suresh Chander Garg, S.D.O. (Canals), SubDivision Banjo, Ghanaur, District Panipat, wrote a letter dated 1st January, 1974 to the Station House Officer, Ghanaur, which reads as under :

"Unauthorised Pipe 6'' dia (diameter) was found fixed as reported by S.O. Smalkha and was found running upto 1 P.M. on 111974, when I inspected the site along with Shri M.S. Chika, Section Officer, Samalkha Section and Shri Keshar Dass Zliledar. The irrigation was also going on in the fields of Shri Tikka Balbir Singh, his man Shri Barkat Singh was sitting at the outlet fixed by them whose statement was also taken, who stated that this has been done by the abetment of Shri Tikka Balbir Singh. The pope may be taken into custody after inspection of site and case may kind be registered. The report is being sent through Shri Manphul Singh Mali.

Sd/ S.C. Garg,

S.D.O.

1.1.1974."

On this report, a case was registered at Police Station Ghanaur. Amrik Singh Assistant SubInspector along with Police Constable went to the spot. He found that Durga and Barkat were present there. The water was passing through two pipes to the fields of Tikka Balbir Singh. These pipes were unauthorised They were taken into possession. So was the kassi which was with Durga. Durga and Barkat were challaned, tried and acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate because he came to the conclusion that the prosecution had made no allegations against the two accused that they had fixed the ironpipes into the minor and the prosecution evidence did not establish the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner was not challaned along with Barkat and Durga. However, under orders dated 20th December 1976 of the learned Magistrate, a separate challan was ordered to be presented against the petitioner.

On 2nd of November, 1977 a challan was put in Court. It was registered. The accusedpetitioner was ordered to be summoned for 24th November, 1977. He appeared in Court it and a charge was framed against him on 24th January, 1978. Thereafter only one formal witness who produced the record, has been examined, so far. The prosecution has not produced and the learned Magistrate has not recorded the statement of any other witness.

It is contended by Shri G.R. Majithia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the occurrence relates to 1st of January, 1974. According to the prosecution story itself, the petitioner was not present at the spot. The only allegations against him are that he abetted the commission of an offence under sections 430/379, Indian Penal Code. The principal accused in the case, namely Durga and Barkat have already been acquitted on merits. The Police had not challaned the petitioner. There is no evidence whatsoever against the petitioner. No witness had stated even in his statement under section 161 of the Code that the petitioner had abetted Durga and Barkat. The petitioner has been summoned only on the basis of the statements alleged to have been made by these two accused to the police when they were accused in the abovementioned case. These statements cannot be treated as evidence. During all these years, no witness except the one formal witness, mentioned earlier, has been examined. The proceedings are clearly an abuse of the process of the Court. He has cited before me Machander v. The State or Hyderabad, 1955 Supreme Court 792, wherein it has been held :

"We are not prepared to keep persons who are on trial for their lives under indefinite suspense because trial Judges omit to do their duty. Justice is not onesided. It has many facets and we have to draw a nice balance between conflicting rights and duties. While it is incumbent on us to see that the guilty do not escape, it is even more necessary to see that persons accused of crime are not indefinitely harassed. They must be given a fair and impartial trial and while every reasonable latitude must be given to those concerned with the detention of crime and entrusted with the administration of justice a limit must be placed on the lengths to which they may go."

Same view was taken, the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Kapil Deo Shukla, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 494, wherein it has been held :

"Where on an application under section 561A, Criminal Procedure Code by the accused who has been kept in suspense of a trial under sections 401 and 477A, I.P.C. for more than 20 years, the High Court quashed the pending proceedings against him on the ground that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court if the trial protracted for about 20 years were to be allowed to go on, particularly in view of the impossibility of furnishing to the accused copies of statements recorded by Police during investigation, depriving the accused of his right to effectively crossexamine the witnesses the prosecution intends to examine; the failure to furnish copies of other documents on which also the prosecution intends to rely in spite of the Court''s order to that effect; and the uncertainty or the memory of witnesses, assuming that they are still available on the question of proving the handwriting on the documents alleged to have been forged by the accused. Held that the circumstances were likely to prevent the trial being altogether fair. It was neither expedient nor in the larger interest of justice that the trial with all such possible deficiencies could be allowed."

In this jurisdiction also, S.S. Dewan, J. in Prithvi Raj and another v. The State of Haryana (Criminal Misc. No. 2345M of 1980), decided on 31st October, 1980, relying upon Kapil Deo Shukla''s case (supra) 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 long lapse of time of 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 salutary public 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 this criminal proceeding should no longer be allowed to stand and must be quashed."

It is apparent from a perusal of the above decisions that the persons accused of crimes are not to be indefinitely harassed. The trials cannot be allowed to linger on indefinitely because such proceedings clearly constitute an abuse of the process of the Court and their quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice.

Respectfully following the above decisions I allow the petition and quash the criminal proceedings in case State v. Tikka Balbir Singh Bedi under section 379/430 Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat.