Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1669 (JHR)

Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand

2016-12-14

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2016
ORDER : This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding relating to Complaint Case no. 99/1999, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Ranchi for the offences under sections 177, 181, 182, 192, 196, 199, 209, 466, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that one Mahendra Singh Chhabra, an ex- employee of the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad was terminated from service and against the said termination order, he filed a writ application in this court vide C.W.J.C. No. 2932/1992(R), stating therein that the rule under which he has been terminated was never approved by the office of the Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna. 3. In that writ application, a counter affidavit filed by the Indian School of Mines annexing a letter issued by the office of the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna. On the basis of the aforesaid counter affidavit, the writ application of Mr. Chabra has been dismissed. Thereafter, Mr. Chhabra moved to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and filed S.L.P. (C) No. 16793/94. The said S.L.P. dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with an observation that the allegation of the petitioner regarding forge letter issued by the office of the Inspector General of Registration be enquired into by the High Court. 4. It is stated that thereafter, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, made an enquiry and prima facie found that the letter annexed with the counter affidavit of the Indian School of Mines was a forged letter accordingly, the Registrar General was directed to file complaint against the petitioner in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Accordingly, the Registrar General filed complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. The C.J.M., Ranchi took cognizance of the offence and the case transferred in the file of the learned A.C.J.M. Ranchi for trial. Thereafter, the A.C.J.M. framed charges against the petitioner. 5. Thereafter, petitioner filed a writ application in this court vide W.P. (Cr.) No. 315/2005 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding. The aforesaid criminal writ application dismissed on 07.07.2006. Thereafter, petitioner filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court vide S.L.P.(C) No. 96/2006. Thereafter, the A.C.J.M. framed charges against the petitioner. 5. Thereafter, petitioner filed a writ application in this court vide W.P. (Cr.) No. 315/2005 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding. The aforesaid criminal writ application dismissed on 07.07.2006. Thereafter, petitioner filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court vide S.L.P.(C) No. 96/2006. The said Special Leave Petition disposed of on 18.03.2009, whereby the order by which charges framed against the petitioner has been quashed and the matter remanded to the file of A.C.J.M. Ranchi for examining the witnesses before framing of charge. After receipt of the record, the A.C.J.M. examined two witnesses on 26.05.2014 and 10.06.2014 and the case is pending for examination of two witnesses. It appears that the court below issued bailable warrant of arrest against the witnesses. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is pending since 1999. Thus, the entire proceeding may be quashed on the ground of stalemate. It is submitted that the petitioner's right of speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in "P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2002 SC 1856 and Abdul Rehman Antulay and others Vs. R.S. Nayak and Another, reported in (1992)1 SCC 225 . 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the delay has been caused, because petitioner earlier approached Hon'ble the Supreme Court for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding. It is further submitted that uptill now, two witnesses had already been examined and remaining two witnesses will be examined soon. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner. 8. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 9. Admittedly, the learned court below took cognizance in the year 1999 and issued summons to the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on 11.07.2005 and obtained bail. It appears that thereafter, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner. Against that the petitioner filed a writ application in this court vide W. P. (Cr.) No. 315/2005. The said writ application dismissed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.07.2006. It appears that thereafter, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner. Against that the petitioner filed a writ application in this court vide W. P. (Cr.) No. 315/2005. The said writ application dismissed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.07.2006. Against the aforesaid order petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court vide S.L.P.(C) No. 5196/06, which was disposed of in the year 2009.Thus, it is clear that from 1999 to 2009, the case could not be disposed of because of the petitioner. After remand of the case by the Supreme Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate again issued summons to the witnesses and examined two witnesses in 2014. It is relevant to mention here that during pendency of this case, one of the witness elevated as Judge of the Patna High Court and therefore, he was examined on commission. Now, the court below issued bailable warrant of arrest against the remaining two witnesses on 24.04.2014. Under the said circumstance, I find that the aforesaid judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Under the aforesaid fact and circumstance, I find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.