LAXMICHAND Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is not being disputed that on a written application dated 18.2.1980 submitted by Ajay Kumar Jain to the Station House Officer, police station Katni, Crime No. 304/80 was registered for offences punishable u/ss 147, 148,294,506 and 323/34 of the IPC against these petitioners and late Shri Roopchand Jain, on 17.4.1980. It is also not in dispute that a police report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') was filed in respect of aforesaid crime in the month of March, 1980, which stood registered in the Court of JMFC as Criminal Case No. 1424/98. It is further an admitted fact that particulars of aforesaid offences were explained to the petitioners on 12.3.1999 by JMFC, Katni, who pleaded not guilty. The photocopy of particulars of offence is marked as document No. 1. Thereafter, the case was fixed for recording prosecution evidence on 15.7.1999, but till 21st March, 2001, the statements of all the prosecution witnesses could not be recorded and the case is still pending at the stage of prosecution evidence.

(2.) IT is also the case of the petitioners that during the pendency of the case, the Public Prosecutor filed an application u/s 321 of the Code on 21.2.2000, seeking permission to withdraw the case. A copy of this application is marked as document No. 2. The learned JMFC rejected the aforesaid application by order dated 11.5.2000, a certified copy of which is marked as document No. 3. This order was challenged on behalf of the State Government. In Cr. Revision No. 37/96 in the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Katni, but it also met the same fate on 8.2.2001, along with the revision filed on behalf of petitioners No. 1 to 4.Certified copy of the said order dated 8.2.2001 is marked as document No. 4. A counter case registered against the complainant Ajay Kumar Jain and 7 others for offences punishable u/ss 294,341,506B, 145 and 323 of the IPC at police station Katni, resulted in conviction on 19.11.1996. The certified copy of the judgment is marked as document No. 5. The certified copy of the judgment dated 23.11.1998, pronounced in Cr. Appeal No. 37/96 filed by complainant Ajay Kumar Jain and other co -accused, is marked as document No. 6. The learned I Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted complainant Ajay Kumar jain and co -accused Pyarelal, so also Sumat Rani in aforesaid judgment marked as document No. 7 pronounced in Cr. Appeal No. 37/96 on 23.11.1998.

(3.) IT is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the pronouncment of Supreme Court in Common Causes Registered Socieites v. Union of India and Others., reported in 1996 (II) MPWN 1 = 1996 MPLJ 636, the learned JMFC should have discharged the petitioners or acquitted them, keeping in view the quantum of punishment provided for the offences, for which these petitioners are facing trial in Criminal Case No. 1424/98. Relying on cited S.G. Nain v. Union of India reported in AIR 1992 SC 603, Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [AIR 1997 SC 3400], Bihar State Electricity Board and another v. Nand Kishore Tamakhuwala [AIR 1986 SC 1653], Mahendra Lal Das v. State of Bihar, [AIR 2001 SC 2989] and Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar [1999 (II) MPWN 191 = AIR 1998 SC 3281], it is further submitted by Shri Rusia, appearing for the petitioners that since in all the aforesaid cases, Hon'ble the Supreme Court was pleased to quash the proceedings which were pending for a period of 10 to 14 years, hence, the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1424/98, which are pending against the petitioners, are also liable to be quashed, as the same are pending over for a period of 22 years.