Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1505 (RAJ)

Kanta Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2011-07-27

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings pending against them in Criminal Original Case No. 285 of 1987, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Srikaranpur. 2. Petitioner No. 3 Kamal Kumar was married to Sunita at Delhi. Thereafter, some disputes arose between the parties and F.I.R. was filed by Sunita against Kamal Kumar on 12.5.1987. After investigation of the said F.I.R., a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners. Thereafter, an agreement was allegedly arrived at between the parties though the agreement has not been placed on the record. However, subsequently, another fact, which has been revealed, is that Smt. Sunita, complainant, filed and application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar, which has been allowed expert. 3. An application has been filed by the counsel for the parties stating therein that the matter has been compromised between the parties and now the marriage between the parties has been dissolved, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. pending because the incident is said to be more than 24 years old and no substantial progress has been taken places in the trial ever since 1991. 4. In view of the statement made at the Bar and the application filed on behalf of the parties and looking to the order dated 9.12.1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sriganganagar whereby the marriage between the parties has already been dissolved, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this state proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. pending against the petitioners. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 3007 , considering the question of quashing proceedings on the ground of delay observed as under: "It is therefore, well settled that the right to speedy trial in all criminal persecutions is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in Court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy trial extends equally to all criminal persecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases. This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in Court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy trial extends equally to all criminal persecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases. In every case, where the right to speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed the Court has to perform the balancing Act upon taking into consideration all the attendant circumstances, enumerated above, and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has bee denied in a given case. Where the Court comes to the conclusion that the right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed, the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, may be quashed unless the Court feels that having regard to the nature of offence and other relevant circumstances, quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a situation, it is open to the Court to make an appropriate order as it may deem just and equitable including fixation of time for conclusion of trial." 5. In this view of the matter, when the matrimonial dispute relates to the year 1987 and no progress has taken place in the trial and looking to the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties the further proceedings in the Criminal Case No. 285 of 1987, pending in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shri Karanpur are liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. It is submitted by the counsel for the parties that the articles of both the parties have already been received by each of them and there is no dispute as regards the articles exchanged at the time of marriage. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order dated 16.9.1991 and all the proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Original Case No. 285/1987 are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******