Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 489 (ORI)

Surendra Nath Mishra v. State Of Odisha

2021-12-03

R.K.PATTANAIK

body2021
ORDER 1. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar on the grounds, inter alia, that it is necessary for the ends of justice, inasmuch as, two other accused persons have been extended similar relief vide CRLMC Nos.1741 of 2010 and 2754 of 2018. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and OP No.2. 3. As revealed from the record, the petitioner and other accused persons were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Section(s) 409/420/167/218 and 120-B IPC in G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 and during its pendency, one among them, namely, Rama Chandra Behera filed CRLMC No.1741 of 2010 which was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 05.12.2016, whereby, the proceeding as against him, was quashed. A copy of judgment in CRLMC No.1741 of 2010 is enclosed as Annexure-1. It is contended that the criminal action was initiated in the year 1990 and in the meantime, 28 years have elapsed and such delay in disposal is not attributable to the petitioner, rather, it occasioned due to lackadaisical attitude of the investigating agency, which filed charge sheet with considerable delay and there has been further delay in supply of police papers. 4. The F.I.R. is dated 26.06.1990 which was lodged by OP No.2 but after receipt of the same, no case was registered and only an SDE was made and subsequently, almost after eight months, i.e. on 23.02.1991, Capital P.S. Case No.114 was registered under Section 408 read with 34 IPC and finally, charge sheet was filed almost after seven years, inasmuch as, it was received by the learned court below on 23.10.1998 under Section(s) 409/420/167/218 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner and four others. It is further made to suggest that the learned court below took cognizance of offences on 26.10.1998 and issued process to the accused persons and the case was adjourned from 07.10.1999 and onwards for supply of police papers and it continued so till 15.02.2010. According to the petitioner, since there has been undue delay, keeping in view the settled position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay Vrs. According to the petitioner, since there has been undue delay, keeping in view the settled position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay Vrs. R.S. Nayak reported in 1992 (1) SCC 225 vis-a-vis right to speedy trial which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 should be quashed, morefully when, similar relief has been extended to two other accused persons, namely, Rama Chandra Behera and one Ananda Chandra Prusty vide CRLMC No. 2754 of 2018. 5. Learned counsel for the State contended that on the ground of delay especially considering the nature of allegations, the proceeding in G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 may not be quashed. The learned counsel for OP No.2 also advanced a similar argument and objected to the relief which has been asked for by the petitioner. A decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.A. Mulla and others Vrs. State of Maharastra and another reported in (1996) 11 SCC 606 is relied upon from the side of OP No.2 contending that on the ground of delay, there can be no justification to quash the criminal proceeding involving the alleged offences. 6. By order dated 27.1.2018, this Court called for a status report from the court concerned, which has been received on 06.02.2019. As per the report of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar vide letter No.23 dated 03.01.2019, it has been intimated that the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 is still pending but has been stayed by orders in MC No.1201 of 2010 arising out of CRLMC No.1741 of 2010 which is, in fact, disposed of in the year 2016. Said CRLMC was disposed of on 05.12.2016 and it appears that the learned court below still reeling under the impression that there was a stay against the proceeding in G.R. Case No.567 of 1991. In spite of disposal of CRLMC No.1741 of 2010 in the year 2016, the learned court below had not proceeded with G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 and it was so till 03.01.2019. In any case, the Court is to consider, whether, on the ground raised by the petitioner, the proceeding in G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 can be quashed or not. 7. In any case, the Court is to consider, whether, on the ground raised by the petitioner, the proceeding in G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 can be quashed or not. 7. Another accused, namely, Ananda Chandra Prusty obtained an order of this Court on 07.12.2018, where under, the proceeding as against him in G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 was quashed on similar ground. A copy of the order dated 07.12.2018 in CRLMC No.2754 of 2018 is available in the record. In fact, this Court by elaborately considering the delay, quashed the proceeding in G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 vis-a-vis Rama Chandra Behera by judgment dated 05.12.2016 and on similar ground, for another accused, namely, Ananda Chandra Prusty in CRLMC No.2754 of 2018. In fact, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is convinced to hold that indeed there has been inordinate delay in proceeding with G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 and as such, no progress at all was made till 03.01.2019, as is made to reveal from the status report of the learned court below. The case is of the year 1991 and no any material is placed on record from the side of the opposite parties to show that the delay was on account of the petitioner. 8. The settled position of law is that it is neither advisable nor feasible or judicially permissible to prescribe an outer limit for the conclusion of criminal proceeding, but then, it is for the criminal court to effectuate the right to a speedy trial. In the present case, as per the order sheets of the learned court below as at Annexure-3, no substantial progress was made till 03.08.2011, when it received order of stay. As earlier mentioned, the stay order which was passed in CRLMC No.1741 of 2010 had a natural death on its disposal on 05.12.2016. That apart, this Court in CRLMC No.2754 of 2018 by order dated 07.12.2018, after taking into account delay in disposal of the case, quashed the proceeding in G.R. Case No.567 against accused, namely, Ananda Chandra Prusty. The Court having regard to the above facts and unexplained delay in disposal of the case which is pending since 1998 is of the humble opinion that applying the rule of parity similar relief should be extended to the petitioner. 9. The Court having regard to the above facts and unexplained delay in disposal of the case which is pending since 1998 is of the humble opinion that applying the rule of parity similar relief should be extended to the petitioner. 9. In so far as the decision of the Supreme Court in A.A. Mulla (supra) is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of that case, where the accused persons were made to face trials twice of course for different offences which consumed considerable period of time, it was held that there was no justification to quash the criminal trial on the ground of delay with an observation that the charges are serious economic offences and therefore, a strict view to be taken by courts. In the instant case, such is not the fact situation. The F.I.R. was lodged in 1991 and the accused persons were charge sheeted in 1998 almost after seven years and ever since then, the proceeding in G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 was pending without any result. Of course, since 2010 the proceeding before the learned court below was stayed by this Court's order in CRLMC No.1741 of 2010. In any case, there was no progress of substantial nature was achieved by the learned court below till 2011. On that basis, other two accused persons have been granted relief vide CRLMC No.1741 of 2010 and CRLMC No.2754 of 2018. Thus, it is reiterated that the petitioner should as well be placed in parity and the proceeding in G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 as against him should be quashed. 10. It is apprised to the Court that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the authority concerned which was challenged in W.P.(C) No.2188 of 2003 and during its pendency, he was dismissed from service on 20.10.2008, however, this Court by order dated 28.10.2014 quashed the order of dismissal and that was challenged in W.A. No.399 of 2014, which was dismissed on 25.04.2019 by a Division Bench of this Court and in support of such a contention, a copy of order dated 25.04.2019 is made available through an affidavit filed on 08.07.2019. Nonetheless, the Court arrives at a conclusion that in so far as the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 is concerned, on the ground of delay and for other reasons discussed herein above, it deserves to be quashed as against the petitioner. Nonetheless, the Court arrives at a conclusion that in so far as the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 is concerned, on the ground of delay and for other reasons discussed herein above, it deserves to be quashed as against the petitioner. Hence, it is ordered. 11. In the result, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. Consequently, the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.567 of 1991 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar is hereby quashed vis-a-vis the petitioner. 12. The CRLMC stands disposed of accordingly. 13. A copy of the above order be communicated to the learned court below along with the order dated 05.12.2016 passed in CRLMC No.1741 of 2010 forthwith.