Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2414 (RAJ)

Rampyari v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-12

DINESH MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of the proceedings against them, which are pending since 2000. 2. The case in hand is a glaring example of agony of an accused, who has got to attend the Court on each date of hearing with no progress in the trial and more so, when the case keeps on getting adjourned for none of his fault. 3. The petitioners are facing trial for offences under Sections 147, 379, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, which according to them they never committed. 4. The brief facts which led to this prolonged prosecution are that one Jeevan Ram lodged an FIR in the Police Station Merta City alleging that the petitioners approached his bara and broke the iron gate of the bara and stole its latch. 5. After investigation, the police filed negative final report on 25.12.2000. 6. The complainant filed a protest petition pursuant whereto, the trial Court took cognizance against seven persons for the offences under Sections 147, 447, 427, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code vide its order dated 03.10.2002. Bailable warrants came to be issued to all the seven accused, out of whom five persons (present petitioners) appeared before the trial Court and furnished their bail bonds which were accepted. 7. However, summons could not be served upon one of the accused-Pancha Ram and since 2002, the matter is pending for securing his presence. Even arrest warrant issued against him has not been served as yet. 8. A perusal of the proceedings of the trial Court reveals that the matter is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Merta (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') and the same is being repeatedly adjourned for service of the arrest warrant and yet said accused has not been apprehended. 9. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners expressed his concern that even charges have not been framed in the case and for trivial allegations, the petitioners are facing trial since 2002. 10. 9. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners expressed his concern that even charges have not been framed in the case and for trivial allegations, the petitioners are facing trial since 2002. 10. While maintaining that the trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance, as there is no material to establish that the petitioners stole the latch, learned counsel argued that suffering the trial for more than 20 years is violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 11. He submitted that in the absence of whereabouts of such accused, the trial will continue till eternity. 12. In support of his argument that in such case, interest of justice warrants that the proceedings be quashed, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 2009 SC 1822 and Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 3077 . 13. Learned Public Prosecutor had nothing much to say, particularly, in the face of the fact that the police had filed a negative final report finding the case to be false. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record including the order-sheets, which have been placed on record by the petitioners and having gone through the above referred judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings under challenge are liable to quashed. 15. The allegation against the petitioners is, that they had stolen latch (not even the gate) of the complainant and broke the telephone cable after entering his bara. 16. The purported incident took place in the year 2000 and 22 years have since passed. In the opinion of this Court, facing the agony of trial, attending the Court on each date of hearing or undergoing trial for more than 20 years is more disturbing than the punishment that the petitioners may get on conviction by the trial Court. 17. The petitioner No. 1 is aged 79 years and other petitioners too have crossed the age of 50 years going to the Court. They have participated in the proceedings for 20 years just for marking their attendance. 17. The petitioner No. 1 is aged 79 years and other petitioners too have crossed the age of 50 years going to the Court. They have participated in the proceedings for 20 years just for marking their attendance. Right to speedy justice is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1360 . 18. Continuation of such proceedings in which there are hardly any chance of proving the accusation, not only violates petitioners' rights of fair trial but also clogs the justice dispensation system, which enjoins upon the Courts to ensure fair and speedy trial to all. 19. That apart, since the punishment even upon conviction is less than 3 years, this Court deems it expedient to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the relief claimed. 20. Hence, the proceedings of the Case No. 42/2012 (State v. Pancha Ram & Ors.), pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Merta are hereby quashed. 21. The present petition is allowed, the stay petition stands disposed of.