IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 167 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30th August, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Pradeep Singh & others ….Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & another ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. P.K. Sharma and Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Addl. Advocate Generals. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 55 of 2004 which was registered on 1.3.2004 under Sections 332, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegation of the petitioner is that a cancellation report had been filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,Chamba against which the complainant had preferred objections in the Court, which vide its order dated 1.9.2007 had directed for re- investigation in the matter. The petitioner further submits that till date no 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 action has been taken by the police. The petitioner submits that continuation of the case is now nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 3. The incident is of 1.3.2004. First Information Report was registered with Police Station, Chamba on the allegations that Rumel Singh complainant, who was working as a Constable with the police, was assaulted by the petitioner herein while he was discharging public duties, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. Cancellation report was filed after investigation. According to the investigation, the complainant had received injuries because of a fall. This conclusion was arrived at after considering the version complainant and after recording statements of the witnesses. The Investigating Officer also found that there was no blood stains present on the spot and that no case much less under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. This report was prepared and filed on 7.9.2004. The complainant thereafter preferred objections before the learned Magistrate. The case remained pending for some time and it was only on 1.9.2007, when re-investigation had been ordered. Even today, no investigation seems to have been made in the matter. The order of Magistrate simply recites that merely because no blood stains were present at the spot would not make any difference to the allegations made by the complainant and the matter required re-investigation. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Advocate General. 5. The record shows that the matter has been investigated by the police thoroughly, more especially, considering the fact that the 3 complainant himself is serving in police. I have also seen the medical certificate which also shows that the complainant was smelling of alcohol. 6. It is true that merely because of the delay, the First Information Report cannot be quashed. But at the same time, criminal proceedings cannot be made interminable. The grounds for quashing criminal proceedings are now well settled. However, looking to the facts of the present case, the proceedings have become interminable. From 2004 till date a period of more than six years has elapsed and there is no certainty that even after re-investigation, proceedings will come to an end. This is nothing but stretching the proceeding to an extent which would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Even after the order has been passed by the Magistrate, the case remained pending for a period of three years. In these circumstances, this petition is accordingly allowed. The First Information Report is quashed. August 30th , 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge