Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2102 (RAJ)

Ganga Ram v. State of Rajasthan Anr.

2013-11-26

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in revision whereby the learned Revisional Court affirmed the order dated 2.2.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh against the petitioners taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325 and 447 I.P.C. and for quashing the proceedings of the original criminal case on the ground of delay. 2. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the 24 petitioners herein against the aforesaid orders. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 Mankori submitted a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 29.9.1993 alleging inter alia that when she was in her home in the morning at about 7 A.M., the accused persons came there and assaulted her by lathis, fists and kicks etc. The accused persons threatened her that if she came to her agricultural field, she would be done away. The complainant was medically examined. Apart from other injuries the nosal bone of the complainant was found fractured. The police kept sleeping over the matter for an unexplained duration of over 12 years and ultimately, a charge-sheet was filed against accused in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh on 2.2.2006 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 447 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on the charge-sheet and summoned all the petitioners for these offences. The petitioners challenged the order summoning them by filing a revision in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in the year 2006 itself. The said revision came to be rejected by the order dated 16.11.2011 and hence, this misc. petition. 4. Shri N.K. Rastogi learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the prosecution of the petitioners in this case is grossly illegal and amounts to a gross abuse of the process of the Court. He submitted that the incident took place way-back in the year 1993. The Investigating Officer kept on sleeping over the file and ultimately, a charge-sheet was filed in the matter after a delay of 12 long years. Learned counsel thus submitted that the proceedings of the criminal case in this matter are absolutely unwarranted and amount to the violation of the petitioners' fundamental right to speedy trial. The Investigating Officer kept on sleeping over the file and ultimately, a charge-sheet was filed in the matter after a delay of 12 long years. Learned counsel thus submitted that the proceedings of the criminal case in this matter are absolutely unwarranted and amount to the violation of the petitioners' fundamental right to speedy trial. He therefore, submitted that the misc. petition deserves to be accepted and the proceedings of the criminal case deserve to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned; counsel for the complainant respondent No. 2 opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. A reply has been filed to the petition in which, it has been pleaded that the complainant is not responsible for the delay, which was occasioned in the investigation of the case. It has further been mentioned that the investigation changed hands of a total of nine Investigating Officers and that is why the delay was occasioned in the case. It was thus submitted that no interference is called for in the order taking cognizance, which has also been affirmed in revision. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the orders impugned and the charge-sheet available on the record. 7. It is not in dispute that the investigation of this case was unduly delayed and hampered for a long period of more than 12 years. However, holding the complainant to be responsible for the said delay would not at all be justified. Nine Investigating Officers were changed for no good reasons whatsoever. The accused could not have suffered any hardship by the prolonged investigation because the offences were all bailable in nature. Therefore, the contention that the accused suffered a great deal on account of the delay occasioned in the case does not prima facie appear to be palpable. The punishment provided for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. is 7 years and therefore, the proceedings cannot be held to be time barred. Subsequent to the filing of the charge-sheet, the accused themselves challenged the order taking cognizance in revision which was decided after five years and thus, the delay of 5 years in the matter pursuant to the order taking cognizance is attributable to the accused themselves. Subsequent to the filing of the charge-sheet, the accused themselves challenged the order taking cognizance in revision which was decided after five years and thus, the delay of 5 years in the matter pursuant to the order taking cognizance is attributable to the accused themselves. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in the matter by exercising the inherent powers of this Court for quashing the proceedings of the Court below. 8. The misc. petition thus being devoid of any merit is hereby rejected. However, considering the fact that the incident took place almost 20 years back, the petitioners are given liberty to appear before the Trial Court and file the bail bonds. Thereafter, they may move an application for exemption from personal appearance before the Trial Court, which shall be considered liberally.Stay petition is also rejected.Petition dismissed. *******