Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 686 (JHR)

Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2012-05-02

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
Judgment Heard the parties. 2. Since the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners after 15 years of lodgment of the case, the entire criminal proceeding is being sought to be quashed on the ground of denial of right to speedy justice. 3. In this respect, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 17.2.1995, an FIR was lodged alleging therein that fradulent withdrawal of Rs.8,13,999/-was made through the bills which were submitted to the Treasury through Messenger Book, 12 pages of which were found missing. However, said fraudulent withdrawal was detected from the verification of the Treasury Record. 4. On such allegation, an F.I.R. was registered against 8 named accused persons including the petitioner. The case was taken up for investigation and after three years charge-sheet was submitted in the year 1998 against four accused persons. Thereafter supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against one accused person in the year 2005, whereas supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against this petitioner on 20.12.2010 almost after 15 years of the lodgment of the case. On such factual aspect of the matter, the entire criminal proceeding is being sought to be quashed, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, right to speedy justice has been denied and where right to speedy justice is denied, it would be appropriate for the Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 5. In support of the submission, learned counsel has referred to a case of Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar { (2009) 3 SCC 355 }. 6. Learned counsel further submits that in fact during investigation in order to find culpability of the petitioner even the then Inspector General of Police, Dumka had directed the Investigating Officer to get the alleged signature of the petitioner appearing over the bills verified but from perusal of the case diary, it does appear that though those documents were sent before the hand writing expert for verification of the signature of the petitioner but the hand writing expert never seems to have submitted its report and without having any such report, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and as such, it can easily be said that sufficient grounds were not there for taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. 7. 7. Admittedly, the case was registered in the year 1995 and it took three years in submission of first charge-sheet which was submitted in the year 1998 against four accused persons. Subsequently, in the year 2005, one supplementary charge-sheet was submitted. However, again a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted in the year 2010 against the petitioner after 15 years of lodgment of the case. 8. Under the situation, it is to be considered as to whether it would be appropriate for the court to quash the entire criminal proceeding on the ground that right to speedy justice has been denied. In this respect, I may refer to a case of Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar { (2009) 3 S.C.C. 355 } (supra), wherein Their Lordships has observed as follows:- “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 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 a the attendant circumstances, enumerated above, and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been 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 frame for conclusion of trial.“ 9. 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 frame for conclusion of trial.“ 9. Thus, it is never there that whenever there has been delay in submission of charge-sheet the case warrants to be quashed, rather before quashing the case on account of delay in trial, the court needs to take into account the nature of offence and the other relevant circumstances to see as to whether it would be proper for the court to quash the proceeding on account of delay in trial. 10. Here in the instant case as it appears that it was the petitioner who had put his signature over the bills through which huge amounts were drawn from the treasury. 11. Under the situation, I do not find it a fit case for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding on the ground of delayed submission of the charge-sheet. 12. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application. Hence this application stands dismissed. 13. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take plea at an appropriate stage that there has been no sufficient material against the petitioner for proceeding with the case.