STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MAHADEVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W. P. No. 30354 of 1994 by which proceedings FIR bearing Crime No. RG 27 of 1987, dated 29-6-1987 pending in cc 23 of 1989 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), bangalore have been quashed. It is contended that the order impugned is against the settled position of law and has been passed in the absence of necessary parties. The facts of the case and the circumstances relevant for purposes of determining the delay, if any, are said to have been not taken note of by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) THE respondent-accused while working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Office of the regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore was stated to have abused his official position and admitted to cheating the Department of a sum of Rs. 32,548/- by fabricating false documents to make it appear that one Sri B. A. Achaiah, a provident fund member bearing account No. KN/5437/185 had made an application for making final withdrawal of his provident fund accumulations and by getting it sanctioned through false notings and representations. An fir was registered and the case was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Formal charge-sheet was submitted in the Criminal Court as noted hereinabove. The proceedings of the criminal case pending in the Trial Court was sought to be quashed on the ground of seven years delay in conclusion of trial which allegedly amounted to the violation of fundamental right for speedy trial claimed to be guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the respondent-accused did not implead the CBI as party-respondent in the case. Relying upon a host of judgments, the learned Single Judge concluded, as there had been delay in concluding the trial, the proceedings pending in the Trial Court were liable to be quashed. Heard.

(3.) IN the normal circumstances, the High Court in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, would not quash the proceedings pending in the Criminal Court or before the Investigating Agency. The prerogative writs are extraordinary remedies intended to apply in exceptional cases in which ordinary legal remedies are deemed to be not adequate. In usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon and Others v State of Gujarat, wherein the petitioners were accused of offences under the TADA Act, the Supreme Court took note of the powers of High court under the Constitution and held as under: