IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0, ^0% / 2011 PETITIONER .w..h P.R. NB. Presentef! by Shri .^..\. Oated...-.../^^--^"^/- Radhey Shyam Pandey, Son of Shri Ramacharya Pandey, aged about 62 years, R/o. Village Dashwal, P.S. Manda, District Allahabad (U.P.) at present R/o. Gandhinagar, P.S. & Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through : S.H.O, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR Sinflle Bench: Hon5Die^nri Manindra Monan Snrivastava, J, PETiTiONER Cr.M.P^ Ng.SOS/lOTI Radhey Shyam Pandey Versus State of Chhattisaarh PEUTiON UNDER 3ECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRiMiNAi. PROCgDURE Present: - Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the StaSe. (Passed on 19th ofAugust, 2011) This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceedlngs pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1SI Class, AmbikaDur under Criminal Case No.478/201 1. f\r "2. Lsarned counsei for the petitioner submitted that on the aiieaation of commission of offence under Section 457 and 380 of iPC, ffie petrtioner and other accused persons have been facing triat for the last 15 years. Learned counsei for the petitioner submitted that there was undue deiav in trial as the investigating Officer was not produced. Even after severat summons / warrants issued by the Court, the said witness has not been found. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the prosecution was granted ample opportunity to lead its evidence and finaily the prosecution evidence was ciosed on 15/1/04. The case. thereafter was listed for examination of the accused on 19/2/04. Thereafter, opportunity was granted to the accused persons to iead defence evidence. The prosecution again moved application on 30/4/05 for examination of the Investigating Officer as prosecution witness, which was aiiowed by the Court and again opportunity was given to the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer. However, all attempts to produce Investigating Officer for examination faiied and the learned Court below again closed the case of the prosecution on 12/12/08. The case was thereafter iisted for finai arguments on 22/'12/08. Final arguments were heard on 24/12/08 and the case was fixed for judflment on 26/12/08. On 26/12/08, the prosecution again fiied an application under Section 311 CrPC for examination or' prosecution witness. On 30/1/09, the Court again allowed the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer. However, thereafter, thou.gh more than 2% years have tapsed, the said wiiness couid not be examined by the prosecution titl date, even though the Court had issued coercive process / baiiable warrant. 3. Learned counsei for the petitioner submlts that in these cjrcumstances, the entire criminal proceedings have become abuse of the process of iaw and the petitioner is unnecessariiy facing criminal triai since 1993 i.e. aimost ISyears. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that \ the criminal proceedings may therefore be quashed. _ _.sS ~A.\ ^ 4. On the other hand, learned State counse! submits that for various reasons stated in orders passed by the trial Court which have been placed on record, the Court, tlme and again, granted opportunity to the prosecution to examine the investigating Officer but none of those orders were challenged by the petitioners. He submits that even order dated 30/01/09 was not chalienged. Learned State counsel submits that for just and proper decision of the case, it is necessary to examine the Investigating Ofncer and therefore, oniy on the ground of deiay in triai, the petitioner is not entitled to pray for quashing of the proceedings. 5. 'he Tacts and circumstances of the present case reveal as sordid state of affairs. The trial has remained pending since last almost 18 years. In the year 2004, the evidence or prosecution was closed i.e. iong after the triai had begun. The order passed by the Court, which has been placed on record shows that time and again, the Court gave opportunities repeatediy to produce prosecution witness / investia.atina Officer but he has not been examined titi date. 1 aiso find that the Court had aiso issued baiiable warrants but the concerned prosecution witness couid not be produced. 6. it is also noted that when the Court below closed the case of the prosecution and heard the matter finaily and when the case was listed Tor deliverv of judflment on 26/12/08, the prosecution again came out with an appiication for examination of the tnvestigating Or'ficer and the same story has been repeated tilt date. The criminal trial cannot be ailowed to ,.sS ~~<'-.'I ^o^ ./ continue indefiniteiy and that too at the mercy ofthe prosecution. From the order sheets which have been piaced on record, it is apparentiy clear that number of opportunities were granted to the prosecution and inspite of ali coercive steps taken by the Court, the Investigating Offieer could not be examined. Even after the case was heard finallv on 24/1 2/'08 and tisted ror deiivery ofjudgment on 26/12/08, it couid not be decided finaily on account of fresh appilcation mo'/ed by the prosecution. 7. True it is that the petitioner has not challenged the correctness of order dated 30/1/09 by which the prosecution was aoain aiiowed to iead prosecution evidence and examine the Investigating Officer, the triai cannot be allowed to continue indefinitety, particuiariy in the manner, it is being held. Speedy triai has been dectared by the Supreme Court as an essentlai part of rundamental right under Articte 21 of the Constitution of India in the case of Moti Lal Saraf v. State pf Jammu and Kasnmir ana Anr., AiR SCWA219 and Pankal Kymar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2008 AiR SCW 5165 . 8. Taking into consideration the totaiity of circumstances, it has become imperative for this Court to now fix a deadline for conciusion of trial. 'he triai Court shai! conclude the trial and pass orders in the case within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Under no circumstances, further time shall be flranted to the prosecution to lead any prosecution witness. Neither the prosecution nor the petitioner shaii seek any adjournment. The trial Court shall fix the date for finai arguments as soon as possibie and decide the matter finaiiy wiihin the time stipulated by thls Court. 9. with the aforesaid observatjons/directions, the petitlon te finaiiy disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge -"•Tfl-