IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.45044 of 2008 ARUN KUMAR LAL DAS S/O Late Uma Nand Das, Resident of Village- Madan Pur, P.S. R.S. Shivir, Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus THE SATTE OF BIHAR For the Petitioner : Mr. K.M. Mishra, Advocate For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A. P.P. ----------- 2/ 12.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State. Petitioner prays for quashing the First Information Report of Madhepur (R.S.Shibir) P.S. case no. 242 of 1998, G.R. No. 100 of 1998 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur for the offence under Sections 420, 464, 467, 468, 471, 466 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has filed supplementary affidavit stating that during the pendency of this application charge-sheet has been submitted in the year, 2009 and cognizance has been taken by order dated 12.06.2009 under Sections 468, 471, 466, 120(B), 420, 464, 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that prolong investigation would be a ground in itself for quashing the prosecution case, as it infringes Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon a decision reported in case of Baidnath Prasad @ Baidnyanath Sah & Another Vs The State of Bihar reported in 1998 (3) PLJR 77 as well as R.K. Mandal and others Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 1997(1) PLJR 354 and a Seven Judges Bench decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2002) 4 SCC 578. - 2 - Learned counsel submits that the court below have now issued Warrant of Arrest for the first time after 11 years consequent to order of cognizance. Learned counsel for the State submits that merely on the ground of delay in lodging the case, First Information Report cannot be quashed, as charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken. He further submits that in appropriate cases, this Court can quash prosecution case where it would appear that the same amounted to miscarriage of justice. Before I discuss the rival submissions of the parties, it would be necessary to notice the First Information Report in short. The informant has alleged that the petitioner and co- accused late Uma Nandan Lal used to manufacture forged document with a view to grab government land. On search various incriminating documents were seized on 08.11.1998 from their premises. A copy of the First Information Report is annexed as Annexure-1. According to First Information Report such documents aim at frustrating encroachment drive, being carried in view of order passed by this Court, in cases of removal of encroachment. The right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The relevant extract of paragraph 85 of Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in case of Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. Vs. R. S.Nayak and Anr. Etc. Reported 1992(1) PLJR 41 SC is quoted hereinbelow: 1.“Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried - 3 - speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the societal interest also, does not make it any the less the right to the accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances”. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court further observed that “Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely, namely the state of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revisions and retrial”. A Division Bench of this Court in case of R.K. Mandal Vs. State of Bihar (supra) observed that continuance of investigation for a long period of more than seven years from the date of the institution of the case is violative of Article 21. This Court noticing that the prosecution case is pending for more than 17 years for no latches on behalf of the accused, quashed the prosecution, being an infringement of fundamental rights. A Bench of this Court in case of Baidnath Prasad @ Baidnyanath Sah (Supra) in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. quashed the prosecution, as charges were not framed for seven years in the facts of that. The matter regarding quashing of prosecution on ground of delay in trial in view of right of speedy trial implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution came up for consideration before a larger Bench of 7 Judges of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of P. Ramachandra Rao (Supra). The Hon‟ble Apex Court observed therein that Courts cannot - 4 - fix any time-limit, as bar beyond which criminal proceedings or trial cannot continue, thereby entitling the accused to be acquitted on ground of delay. Hon‟ble Apex Court further observed that prescription of such limitation period would amount to judicial legislation which is not permissible. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, held that the time limit prescribed in case of Raj Deo Sharma (I) Vs. State of Bihar, and Raj Deo Sharma (II) Vs. State of Bihar did not lay down good law. However, the Hon‟ble Apex Court up held the dictum of law laid by it in case of A.R. Antulay that Article 21 of the Constitution provides for speedy trial. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in its conclusion no. 3 in paragraph 29(3) observed as follows: “The guidelines laid down in A.R.Antulay case are not exhaustive but only illustrative. They are not intended to operate as hard-and-fast rules or to be applied like a straitjacket formula. Their applicability would depend on the fact situation of each case. It is difficult to foresee all situations and no generalization can be made”. The decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of P.R.Rao (supra) clearly augurs for speedy trial. In appropriate cases on the ground of prolong delay in investigation, enquiry or trial for no fault of accused in trial, prosecution can be quashed. A balance has to be struck between liberty of an accused as well justice to the victim. In the instant case, the allegation is of manufacturing forged document with a view to grab government land. The police now has submitted charge-sheet and cognizance has also been taken. In view of the nature of the allegation and that cognizance has now been taken, I am not inclined to quash the prosecution solely on the - 5 - ground of delay in investigation, which at times cannot be said to be „unfriendly‟. Nonetheless, this Court deprecates the manner in which the investigation has prolonged for 11 years. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to Director General of Police, Patna for the needful and necessary guidelines to all the District Superintendents (Superintendent of Police). Let a copy of this order be also forwarded to Superintendent of Police, Madhubani. Now, as the cognizance has been taken and the case is of year, 1998, this Court directs that the case be immediately committed for consideration on the point of framing of charge. In case, charges are framed, the trial should be completed preferably within a period of eight months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. Uday/ A.F.R. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)