Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 687 (PAT)

Lal Keshwar Singh v. State of Bihar

2013-06-25

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the State. 2. No one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2. 3. The Petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 19.4.1992 passed in Criminal Revision No. 300 of 1990 by the Sessions Judge, Nalanda, by which he set aside the order dated 31.8.1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Biharsharif and directed the Court to start a committal proceeding for committing the case. 4. The background facts of the case is that on 20.7.1985, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a Complaint which was sent under Section 156(3) of Indian Penal Code for investigation numbered as Harnaut P.S. Case No. 78 of 1985 alleging therein that the accused persons variously armed came to his fields and fired at them as also entered their houses and committed theft of articles. 5. After due investigation, the Police submitted charge sheet under Section 144 Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken under the said Section on 5.3.1986. 6. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No. 2 examined three witnesses and on 2.5.1988 filed an application under Section 319 Cr. P.C. for summoning additional accused. The Petitioners No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 13 and 15 appeared to face trial. 7. When the Opposite party No. 2 did not take any steps for production of the witnesses by order dated 9.8.1989, the Trial Court closed the evidence of Prosecution and fixed the case for defence and hearing on 26.8.1989. On the said date, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a petition that the rest of the charge sheet witnesses be examined as Court witnesses but the Trial Court rejected the said petition. The Opposite Party, thereafter, moved the Sessions Judge, Nalanda, vide Cr. Revision No. 403 of 1989 challenging the said order but the same was dismissed. The Opposite Party No. 2 then filed an application before this Court vide Cr. Misc. 1979 of 1990 which was also disposed off on 14.3.1990 with the opinion that there was no scope for interfering in the matter. 8. However, once again by the Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application before the Trial Court on 22.3.1990 submitting therein that the witnesses be examined. On such prayer, the Opposite Party No. 2 was permitted to examine the Investigating Officer. 9. 8. However, once again by the Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application before the Trial Court on 22.3.1990 submitting therein that the witnesses be examined. On such prayer, the Opposite Party No. 2 was permitted to examine the Investigating Officer. 9. To further protract the Trial, on 28.5.1990 the Opposite Party filed yet another application that the case be committed to the Court of Sessions since the evidence disclosed ingredients of offence punishable under Section 395 Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court rejected such a prayer against which the Opposite Party No. 2 moved the Revisional Court which also dismissed it with an observation that after the examination of the main witnesses, the Court considers as to whether a case under Section 395 would be made out. 10. It appears that after 19.7.1990, no further evidence was recorded and yet the Opposite party No. 2 reagitated the issue which was rejected by the Trial Court, but he directed that the accused persons appear for facing charges also under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 452, 448, 380 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 11. As against this order, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed Criminal Revision No. 300 of 1990 which was dismissed as not pressed. He then filed Cr. Misc. 1120 of 1991 before this Court which was disposed off on 8.8.1991 quashing the order dated 13.12.1991 and directed the Sessions Judge to rehear the matter on merits. It was then the impugned order was passed. 12. On going through the entire history of the case, it is undoubted that the Opposite Party No. 2 protracted the Trial right from 1985 till date without any justification. Once the issue of committing the case was decided by the High Court, there was no occasion for rehearing of the matter. Further to summon the accused to face amended charges under other minor Sections, after a lapse of Twenty-Eight years, was completely uncalled for. In these circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the present proceeding which has been kept pending for 28 years has resulted in gross injustice, and hence, the prosecution case is fit to be set aside. 13. Further to summon the accused to face amended charges under other minor Sections, after a lapse of Twenty-Eight years, was completely uncalled for. In these circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the present proceeding which has been kept pending for 28 years has resulted in gross injustice, and hence, the prosecution case is fit to be set aside. 13. In view of such, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 19.4.1992 passed in Criminal Revision No. 300 of 1990 by the Sessions Judge, Nalanda and the order dated 31.8.1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Biharsharif, are hereby quashed. Application allowed.