Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 283 (JHR)

Madhu Sudan Bouri v. State of Jharkhand

2011-03-30

D.K.SINHA

body2011
Order Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 8.8.2008, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected. Such prayer has been supplemented by the oral submission of the learned counsel Mrs. Vandana Singh, that the entire criminal prosecution of the petitioner may be quashed in view of the pendency of the investigation for long seventeen years. 2. Prosecution story in short was that the petitioner was an employee of CCL, posted. in Category-I, E & M Section, 'Amlo Project' prior to 11.7.1994 but in the intervening night of 4/5.7.1994 it was alleged that miscreants had committed loot in the cash room of Amlo Project and they decamped with Rs. 7,00,000/-, to which a written report was presented on 5.7.1994 and a case was instituted under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, giving rise to Bermo P.S. Case No.125/94, corresponding to G.R. No. 598/ 94. During course of investigation, it was suspected by the Investigating Officer that it was the petitioner, who committed embezzlement of the entire amount and had given the colour of loot. On the petition of the Investigating Officer, the case which was earlier lodged for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code was converted into one under Sections 408/ 409/120B of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial custody. He was released on bail on 6.10.1994 in B. P. No. 876/94. On 15.7.2004 Investigating Officer of the case submitted charge-sheet against co-accused Onkar Singh and Karmu Bhuiyan and after taking cognizance of the offence, the record was transferred to the Court of Sri M.P. Misra, Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat showing investigation pending against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel Mrs. Singh submitted that till filing of this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 23.12.2008, police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be submitted and has not yet been submitted. Petitioner was suspended from his job on 11.7.1994 and no dereliction in his duty could be found against him to take disciplinary action. Petitioner was suspended from his job on 11.7.1994 and no dereliction in his duty could be found against him to take disciplinary action. Though the petitioner is on his duty but his promotion or time bound benefits have been withheld due to pendency of the criminal case and within a long span of seventeen years, police report could not be submitted and thereby, he has been deprived of speedy justice. 4. Mrs. Singh relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Vakil Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2009)3 Supreme Court Cases 355 [ : 2009(1) JLJR (SC)277], wherein it was held as under: "24. It is, therefore, well settled that the right to speedy trial in all criminal persecutions (sic prosecutions) 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 prosecutions 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 been denied in a given case." 5. In the facts and circumstances, Mrs. Singh submitted that criminal prosecution of the petitioner may be quashed in view of the proposition of the Apex Court. 6. Mr. Shikarwar, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State does not dispute the fact of delayed investigation. 7. In the facts and circumstances, relying upon the decision, referred to hereinbefore, the entire criminal proceeding of the petitioner, arising out of Bermo P.S Case No.125/94, corresponding to G.R. No. 598/94, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat is quashed and this petition is allowed.