Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI) have come up with these appeals aggrieved by the common judgment in W.P.C.No.27289 of 2003 and O.P.No.23400 of 2002 quashing all proceedings in C.C.No.513 of 1995 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ appeals have also been filed by the widow of Maniyeri Madhavan, the complainant. 2. Counsel appearing for the CBI Sri S. Sreekumar submitted that the judgment of the learned single judge has the effect of nullifying the decisions of the apex court in Maniveri Madhavan v. Sub Inspector of Police (1994 (1) SCC 536), Prem Shankar v. CBI (1998 (2) KLT 103) and K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police (2002 (8) SCC 87) and the various directions contained therein with regard to the same subject matter. 3. Senior Counsel Sri T.P. Kelu Nambiar, appearing for the respondents in W.A.No.1979 of 2004 as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent in the other case supported the judgment of the learned single judge and submitted that the learned single judge has correctly applied the principles laid down by the apex court in Antony v. State of Kerala (2003 (1) KLT 1 (SC) to quash the criminal proceedings. Placing reliance on the decision of the apex court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others (1977 SCC (Criminal) 44) counsel submitted that on facts also no case has been made out against the accused under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel submitted, in any view of the matter, since the complainant is no more the principle laid down by the apex court in Shanker v. State of U.P. (1975 SCC (Crl.) 270) would squarely apply and there is no purpose in proceeding with the case C.C.No.513 of 1995. 4. We need not elaborately state the facts for the disposal of these cases since facts have been stated, discussed and reiterated by the apex court in Maniyeri Madhavan v. Sub Inspector of Police (1994 (1) SCC 536) and this court in Prem Shankar v. SBI (1998 (2) KLT 103) and K.G. Premshankar v. Inspector of Police (2002 (8) SCC 87). We may refer only to bare facts. We may refer only to bare facts. Respondent in W.A.No.1979 of 2004 is the first accused and the appellant in W.A.No.2021 of 2004 is the 7th accused in C.C.No.513 of 1995 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, for offences under Sections 120 B read with Sections 323, 342, 427, 465 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 323, 342, 357, 427, 465 and 201 IPC. Charges leveled against the respondent in W.A.No.1979 of 2004 is that while he was holding the post of Superintendent of Police, Kannur had entered into a criminal conspiracy along with the other accused reached the “Sudinam” office on 12.12.1988 picked upon Maniyeri Madhavan by using imminent force and detained him in custody and also caused loss and damages to the press and caused voluntary hurt and wrongful confinement of Maniyeri Madhavan, the printer and publisher of “Sudinam”, an evening daily. Offences charged against the other accused are also most identical. 5. Maniyeri Madhavan was a journalist. On 2.2.1988 Madhavan published the name and details of a tribal minor girl namely Manja, rape victim, in his newspaper. On the complaint of the parents of the minor girl, crime No.50 of 1988 of Kannur police station was registered as against Madhavan under Section 228A I.P.C. and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. During the course of investigation of the Crime Circle Inspector of Police, Kannur Police Station searched the printing press of Madavan on 12.2.1988 and seized the printing parts of the press and arrested Madhavan on the same day. Madhavan was produced before the Magistrate when he complained about police assault. Madhavan was enlarged on bail and on the same day he was admitted in a hospital for treatment of the injuries sustained during police custody. Madhavan lodged a complaint before Kannur police station complaining of assault during police custody. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.52 of 1988 of Kannur Police Station was registered under Sections 143, 223 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the Sub Inspector of Police and other six or seven identifiable policemen. On the allegation that crime No.52 of 1988 was against Superintendent of Police, Kannur and apprehending that he would not get justice, Madhavan approached this court by filing Crl. M.C. No.228 of 1988 seeking investigation of Crime No.52 of 1988 by the CBI. On the allegation that crime No.52 of 1988 was against Superintendent of Police, Kannur and apprehending that he would not get justice, Madhavan approached this court by filing Crl. M.C. No.228 of 1988 seeking investigation of Crime No.52 of 1988 by the CBI. This Court by order dated 8.4.1989 directed the D.I.G. of Police, Northern Range to look into the complaint of Madhavan if he makes representation in that behhaf. Being dissatisfied by the order of this court, Madhavan filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court seeking CBI investigation. The Supreme Court by order dated 22.12.1989 directed the D.I.G. of Police, Central Range to investigate the crime and file the report within two months. Since there was no progress in the investigation consequent to the order of the Supreme Court, Madhavan moved the Supreme Court again and the Supreme Court by order dated 13.10.1992 directed the CBI to investigate into the complaint and complete the investigation and file a report within four months. Consequently CBI took up the investigation into the complaint and filed a report before the Supreme Court on 5.5.1993. The Supreme Court disposed of the matter finally by judgment reported in 1994 (1) SCC 536 and held as follows: “We have given our careful consideration to the above submissions. We do not think we can come to the rescue of police officer. Whether they are guilty or not of the offence charged is a matter to be established in a criminal trial.” CBI later filed its final report on 24.7.1995 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate which was numbered as C.C.No.513 of 1995. 6. Respondents herein had raised a preliminary objection before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court by filing Crl. M.P.Nos.6332, 6334 and 6335 of 1995 stating that the court could not have taken cognizance of the offence as the same was barred by limitation. Chief Judicial Magistrate overruled the objections against which the respondent filed Crl. R.P. No.59 of 1995 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam which remitted the matter back to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Respondents then filed Crl. M.C.No.2290 of 1995 before this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of the Sessions Judge. Learned single judge of this court in the decision in Prem Shankar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (1998 (2) KLT 13) dismissed the petition. Before this court respondents herein had advanced various contentions. Respondents then filed Crl. M.C.No.2290 of 1995 before this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of the Sessions Judge. Learned single judge of this court in the decision in Prem Shankar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (1998 (2) KLT 13) dismissed the petition. Before this court respondents herein had advanced various contentions. It is worthwhile to extract portion of the judgment which reads as follows: The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for all the petitioners would be that the cognizance of those offences have been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 Crl.P.C. Hence the proceedings pending before the Magistrate in C.C.No.513 of 1995 can be quashed and in support of their arguments they placed reliance on the propositions settled, by the apex court and on some of the judgments delivered by High Courts.” After referring to various decisions cited by the respondents herein the court held as follows: “On the above principles, now let me look into the facts in the present case before me. The Supreme Court passed the final order on 22.9.1993 entrusting the investigation of this case to C.B.I. C.B.I. then filed the charge sheet on 27.4.1995. The period taken by C.B.I. from 22.9.1993 till 27.4.1995 was explained by the learned Public Prosecutor of C.B.I. According to him, they had to obtain the sanction from the State Government and the matter had also to be clarified in approaching the Government of India as one of the accused is an I.P.S. Officer. The above submission of the learned Public Prosecutor is fortified by the records placed before this court. On the date of the final order passed by the Supreme Court on 22.9.1993, as a matter of fact, the period of limitation of taking cognizance of these offences was barred. The Supreme Court, taking into consideration of the above aspect, has passed the order on that day directing C.B.I. to investigate the matter. Therefore, it is idle now to advance an argument that the Supreme Court was not aware of the aspect of limitation already barred prior to 22.9.1993. However, the learned Public Prosecutor, C.B.I. is not standing in the way of considering the period of limitation in the light of the settled principles of the Supreme Court and this court. Therefore, it is idle now to advance an argument that the Supreme Court was not aware of the aspect of limitation already barred prior to 22.9.1993. However, the learned Public Prosecutor, C.B.I. is not standing in the way of considering the period of limitation in the light of the settled principles of the Supreme Court and this court. In this context it is pertinent to note once again that in all the citations, stated supra, the final orders have been passed in the petition under Section 473 Cr. P.C. In the instant case before me, the learned single judge has only remitted the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to consider the petition to be filed by the C.B.I. under Section 473 Cr. P.C. Hence it is needless to say that no final order has been passed by the court below in a petition under Sec.473 Cr. P.C. What that be so, in moving cases like the present under Section 482 Crl. P.C. there will not prevail a healthy atmosphere in the administration of justice. For, only in order to prevent the abuse of process of courts, and miscarriage of justice and to secure the ends of justice in the rarest of rare case Sec.482 Cr. P.C. can be invoked during investigation and enquiry or trial before the court.” Learned judge dismissed the petitions and refused to quash the proceedings initiated against the respondents in C.C.No.513 of 1995. 7. Aggrieved by the said order respondents herein took up the matter before the apex court and the apex court in K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police (2002 (8) SCC 87) did not interfere with the order of this court and dismissed the special leave petition holding as follows: “In the present case, after remand by the High Court, civil proceedings as well as criminal proceedings are required to be decided on the evidence which may be brought on record by the parties.” Accused 1 and 7 in C.C.No.513 of 1995 having failed in their attempt under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. have approached this court by filing the present writ petitions invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.513 of 1995 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam which was refused to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. 8. Learned single judge relied upon several decisions of the apex court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Pavithran (AIR 1990 S.C. 1266), Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992 (1) SCC 225), Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 (1) SCC 248), P. Ramchandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002 (4) SCC 578), Biswanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (1994 Supp. 3 SCC 97), Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi (2003 (8) and Antony v. State of Kerala (2001 (3) KLT 1) and opined that the delay in completing the investigation and the mistake committed in placing reliance on more than one First Information Reports have caused prejudice to the accused persons. Learned Judge also held that the allegations leveled against the accused would not disclose the ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy and therefore quashed the proceedings. 9. In our view, the above reasoning cannot be sustained since those grounds were earlier raised for quashing the criminal proceedings invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Plea was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court, this court and later upheld by the Supreme Court. Petitioners have now filed the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending that the right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated. Further it was pleaded that even accepting the case of the prosecution, no offence has been made out and there was delay in registering the offence. Learned single judge completely lost sight of the history of the case and its background and has gone beyond the pleading and allowed the writ petitions by quashing the criminal proceedings. 10. CBI took up the investigation on the specific direction of the apex court and a report was submitted before the Supreme Court on 5.5.1993. Final report was submitted by the CBI in the year 1995 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court, Ernakulam. Though the crime was registered on 13.2.1988 investigation was handed over to the CBI by the order of the Supreme Court on 13.12.1992 and there was a direction to complete the investigation and file report within four months. Final report was submitted by the CBI in the year 1995 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court, Ernakulam. Though the crime was registered on 13.2.1988 investigation was handed over to the CBI by the order of the Supreme Court on 13.12.1992 and there was a direction to complete the investigation and file report within four months. Objection was raised by the respondents before the Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that the court could not have taken cognizance of the matter since it was barred by limitation and also at the instance of the respondents matter got stayed by the Supreme Court and later the special leave petition was dismissed. In any view of the matte, as we have already indicated, contentions raised by the respondents have already been rejected by this court which was upheld by the apex court. 11. The present writ petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.513 of 1995 which this refused to do in proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel pointed out that even if this Court rejected the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. still petition under Article 226 is maintainable since speedy trial is fundamental right of a citizen. We find it difficult to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners. It is held by the apex court in State through CBI v. Dr. Narayan Waman Nerukar and another (2002 (7) SCC 6) that while considering the question of delay the court has a duty to see whether the prolongation was on account of any delaying tactics adopted by the accused to the delay. In Abdul Rehman Antulay V. R.S.Nayak (1992 (1) SCC) the apex court held that it must be left to the judicious discretion of the court seized to a new case to find our from the totality pf circumstances to a given case if the quantum of time consumed upto a given case if the quantum of time consumed upto a given point of time amounted to violation of Article 21 and if so, then to proceed ahead. Facts would indicate at every stage of the proceedings the matter was got delayed at the instance of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioners were litigating before this court and the apex court on various occasions which contributed for the delay. Facts would indicate at every stage of the proceedings the matter was got delayed at the instance of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioners were litigating before this court and the apex court on various occasions which contributed for the delay. Of late, petitioner also challenged the same in a proceeding under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and without success and later took up the matter before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed. Now the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in our view, in the facts and circumstances of this case, cannot be entertained and only to be rejected. 12. We cannot also accept the contention of the writ petitioner that offence under Sec. 120 B would not lie. It is well established tat charge under Sec. 120 B would not lie. It is well established that charge under Sec. 120 B can be proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Reference was made to the statement made by the CBI which according to it would show involvement of the accused and the conspiracy hatched. We may not express any opinion on those matters since the matter is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court. Counsel appearing for the respondents also submitted that the complaint with the matter at this point of time, a plea cannot be answered by us in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in any view, the wife of the complaint is still prosecuting the matter. 13. In such circumstances, we are of the view, learned single judge has committed grave error in quashing criminal proceedings. Judgment of the learned single judge is set aside and the appeals stand allowed.