C T BASKARAN Vs. M P JAYARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who have been arrayed as A-5 and A-6 and who have been implicated in this case for the alleged offence under Sections 109, 120(b), 323, 347, 395, 397 and 356 IPC on the basis of the private complaint instituted by the respondent herein pending in P.R.C.No.1 of 1987 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur, have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings.

(2.) MR. P.N. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that already police complaints were pending for investigation in Crime Nos.45 and 46 of 1983 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Cherambady Police Station, Thellucherri, Nilgiris District, for the offence under Sections 147, 342, 364, 384, 323 and 379 IPC implicating five accused and in that complaints, the petitioners have not been implicated as accused. It is contended that during the pendency of investigation in that complaints, the impugned private complaint was filed by the respondent herein and after taking the complaint on file by giving P.R.C.No.1 of 1987 the learned Magistrate kept further proceedings in abeyance in view of the provisions under Section 210 Cr.P.C. on the ground of investigation is pending on the basis of the first Information Report registered in Crime No.45 of 1983 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Cherambady Police Station by calling the concerned police to submit its final report. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 210 Cr.P.C. is applicable to only in respect of the investigation is pending against the concerned accused persons and as far as the petitioners are concerned, they have not at all been implicated in the above said first Information Report which was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the respondent herein and as such there is no justification for keeping the matter pending by invoking Section 210 Cr.P.C. insofar as the petitioners are concerned. It is contended that in view of such procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate, the petitioners have been put into great hardship and they are undergoing the ordeal of the pendency of the criminal complaint against them right from the year 1987. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in view of the inordinate delay and in view of the admitted fact that the petitioners are in no way responsible for such delay, the impugned complaint is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in Moti Lal Saraf V. State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in (2006 AIR SCW 5219) and contended that in view of the inordinate delay in conducting the trial, the petitioners right to speedy trial has been infringed and as such continuation of further proceedings on the basis of the impugned complaint would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

(3.) I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the impugned complaint and other materials available on record including the First Information Report registered in Crime No.45 of 1983 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Cherambady Police Station.