Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2518 (ALL)

Jograj v. State of U. P.

2019-11-11

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No.3032 of 2002 (State Vs. Jograj @ Jugraj) arising out of Case Crime No.195 of 2002, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Fatehgarh, District-Farrukhabad, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. 2. Heard Sandeep Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Shri Raj Kumar Vaishya, learned counsel for the applicant. 3. Submission of the counsel is that charge-sheet was submitted in this case in the year 2002. Charge was framed on 29.5.2008 and since then the matter is pending in the court without even a single witness having been produced in the trial. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the order-sheet that has been filed as Annexure No.4. Countless dates have been given to produce evidence but the prosecution has not availed the opportunity and that is how the matter has remained unconcluded so far. Applicant was a Bandirakshak and has been terminated from the service because of the criminal case that was lodged against him. Submission of the counsel is that applicant has already suffered enormously because of this case regarding which no evidence could be produced even in 16 years by the prosecution. It has been contended that a reasonable period of time can always be granted to the prosecution but it does not mean to say that a trial against an accused can go on for infinite period of time. Somewhere it has to come to an end. It was also pointed out that during this course even the High Court had issued directions to expedite the proceedings but it has not brought any tangible effect. Submission is that in such background the concept of fairness of trial has been vitiated and the proceedings deserves to be quashed. 4. Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 5. The perusal of the record indicates that there is substance in the submissions made by the counsel. The date of filing of the F.I.R. shows that it was as long back as in the year 2002. 4. Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 5. The perusal of the record indicates that there is substance in the submissions made by the counsel. The date of filing of the F.I.R. shows that it was as long back as in the year 2002. Even the framing of charge in the year 2008 has not been disputed by learned A.G.A. In fact, though learned A.G.A. has opposed this application but could not proffer any such convincing or adequate explanation which may persuade this Court to hold that the prosecution evidence could not be produced for any valid reason. The Court has to strike a balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the prosecution. The fairness of trial is one of the most essential rights of the accused. It is embedded in the spirit of the Constitution to ensure the concept of fair trial. Certainly a trial cannot be said to be fair if it is allowed to drag on for such a long period of time and that too for no valid explanation for the enormous delay. The criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to act as an engine of oppression against the accused and the prosecution cannot be allowed to become persecution. This Court feels satisfied that the manner in which the trial has been delayed and the manner in which the prosecution has failed to adduce the evidence in the Court is now vitiating the concept of fair trial and the same deserves to be quashed therefore. 6. The application stands allowed and for reasons given above, proceedings of the aforesaid trial regarding applicant stands quashed.