KAMAL GAIND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this common order. I shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing W.P. (Crl) Nos. 1379 of 2013 and 1502 of 2013, inasmuch as, both these petitions have been filed under Articles 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of same FIR No. 119 of 1997 dated 10th March, 1997 registered at Police Station CR Park and charge sheet dated 17 th March, 2006.

(2.) THE subject of the FIR relates to a dispute regarding the elections to the Body managing Sree Sanatan Dharam Mandir at Greater Kailash - II, New Delhi. The FIR owns its origin to the disputes between the erstwhile and present incumbents for managing the affairs of Sanatan Dharam Sabha for offences under Sections 201/420/448/468/471/120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner, proforma respondents and three more persons who have died. The petitioner Kamal Gaind, proforma respondents and other persons named in the FIR moved this Court by filing W.P.(Crl) No. 9 of 1998 seeking quashing of FIR No.119/97 dated 10.03.1997 titled as Sh. Prithvi Raj Gulati & Ors. v. State. Vide order dated 17th October, 1998 the Division Bench of this Court quashed the FIR. Aggrieved by the order of quashing of the FIR, respondent No.2/complainant approached Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by filing Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.4156/1998 registered as Crl. Appeal No.561/1998. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 19th August, 2004 allowed the appeal and ordered that investigation should proceed further in accordance with law. The Crime Branch of Delhi Police completed its investigation and submitted the charge sheet dated 17th March, 2006 by impleading petitioners as one of the co - accused therein. Acting on the same, the Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated 15th September, 2006 summoned the petitioner Kamal Gaind and other accused persons but declined to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioner Ramphal Bansal under Section 201/120B IPC. This order became the subject matter of challenge in the proceedings registered as Crl. R.P. No. 832/2006 while the petitioner Kamal Gaind and proforma respondents also filed Crl. Misc. Main No. 7311 -15/06 for quashing of the FIR No.119/1997 and proceedings emanating thereform besides challenging the summoning order. Vide order dated 17 th May, 2010 the Criminal Revision Petition was allowed while Criminal Miscellaneous Main filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner Ramphal Bansal appeared before the Trial Court on 31st May, 2010. It is alleged that in the proceedings before the Trial Court, three of the accused named in the FIR died. Investigation Officer appeared only once on 10th April, 2012 and that too after bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against him. The manner in which prosecution is proceeding with the trial for over last seven years, the offence against petitioners and proforma respondents is not liable to be sustained on facts and in law. Petitioners have right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India which has been infringed, as such criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Pavithran (1990) 2 SCC 340, Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 2008 SC 3077; Santosh De v. Archna Guha and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 1229; P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578; and Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 525 for submitting that although the FIR was registered in the year 1997, during the period 2004 -2012 Investigating Officer absented himself from the Trial Court for no good reason. Delay was not attributable to petitioners. Valuable constitutional right of the petitioners to a speedy investigation and trial has been infringed hence criminal proceedings initiated against them are liable to be quashed.