Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 17 (JK)

Mela Ram v. Mohinder Lal

2006-02-27

J.P.SINGH

body2006
1. Through the medium of this petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings pending before Additional District Magistrate (Assistant Commissioner Revenue), Jammu. 2. Sh. Pranav Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that continuance of proceedings by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Jammu, beyond the period prescribed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e., two months from the date of appearance of the parties, is illegal and that the petitioner has been deprived of his right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as made applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 3. Both these submissions of the learned counsel are untenable because Section 145 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate any bar still less absolute bar disabling the Magistrate seized of the proceedings, in continuing the proceedings even beyond the period of two months prescribed under the aforesaid section. 4. All that is contemplated by Section 145 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that proceedings under Section 145 may be completed within a period of two months provided it is practicable so to do. 5. The scheme of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate truncation of the proceedings after a period of two months as urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. Article 21 relied upon by Sh. Kohli, too, is not attracted to the proceedings under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for its application is limited to those proceedings only where the life or personal liberty of an individual is involved. 6. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, can be invoked if procedure prescribed by law is not followed in depriving a person of his life or personal liberty. 7. Neither any such case been set up nor attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. No ground is, thus, made out by the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. 9. 7. Neither any such case been set up nor attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. No ground is, thus, made out by the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. 9. It, however, appears from the records that the order of dropping of proceedings by the learned Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was questioned with success, when this Court vide its judgment dated 22.2.1996 in Criminal Reference No. 1/1996, set aside the order of Additional District Magistrate, Jammu and directed the Magistrate to dispose of the proceedings after taking into consideration and critically examining, the affidavits and other evidence of the parties in support of their respective claims regarding their possession in support of the subject matter of the dispute within six months from the date of receipt of the order. 10. This Courts order was received by the learned Magistrate on 22.3.1996. It is quite surprising to find that direction of this Court to conclude proceedings within a span of six months has gone unheeded and no steps worth the name have been taken by the learned Magistrate in concluding the proceedings within the prescribed period. The note sheet of the file of the learned Magistrate shows that a casual approach has been adopted by the concerned Magistrate in dealing with the case and adjourning the same from time to time on one or the other pretext. Non appearance of the parties too has attributed to the delay in disposal of the proceedings. 11. Long delay in disposal of such type of cases affects seriously the administration of Justice and finally the confidence of people in the Magistracy. 12. Immediate directions are, thus, warranted to ensure that no further damage or prejudice is caused to the parties who are entitled to secure justice at a speedier pace. 13. I, therefore, deem it just and proper to direct the learned Magistrate to conclude the proceedings by taking up the case on priority and on day to day basis, so that justice is not only done but appears to have been done to those who seek justice from the Magistracy. 14. Learned Additional District Magistrate (Assistant Commissioner Revenue), Jammu, is directed to conclude the proceedings before April 30, 2006. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on March 9, 2006. 14. Learned Additional District Magistrate (Assistant Commissioner Revenue), Jammu, is directed to conclude the proceedings before April 30, 2006. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on March 9, 2006. Learned Magistrate is further informed to report progress of the proceedings to the Registrar Judicial of this Court every fortnight.