RANDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant-Randhir Singh has prayed for quashment of the order dated 30-4-2013 passed by the JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case No. 773/04, rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. for discharging the applicant from offence under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC registered against him. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution was that Police Station, Rajendra Nagar was proceeding against the accused in Crime No. 163/81 and the FIR had been filed and crime was registered at No. 178/81 for offence under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Considering the First Information Report and the final report of the investigation, there was no other documents available and the Presiding Officer of the previous Court had directed the Police Superintendent, Indore to file the documents available with the Investigating Agency, however, there was no document filed till date; despite which the Trial Court on 16-1-2007 continued to frame the charge against the applicant from offence under Sections 419, 467 and 468 of the IPC against the applicant and thereafter the matter was listed for the evidence of the prosecution witness. Being aggrieved the accused petitioner had filed an application under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge, however the Trial Court refused to do so; stating that since the offences had already been recorded against the applicant it would not be possible to discharge the accused. And hence the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that according to the instructions received by him from the accused : for last 32 years; the Superintendent of Police had failed to file any documents up to 30-4-2013 despite directions from the Trial Court to produce the documents, the Superintendent of Police had not filed a single document up to today. Moreover, from the final report, it was indicated that the Investigating Agency did not want to proceed against the applicant. And since the offence was so old, an application had been filed on behalf of the applicant vide Annexure P-3 for discharge, which has been rejected by the Trial Court by the order impugned.

(3.) Counsel vehemently urged the fact that the applicant is now 67 years of age and the date of the incident is 24-3-1978. The challan was put up on 5-12-1981 and nothing has been done till today. Counsel relied on P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, 2002 2 MPWN 1, to state that when there was a case of breach of fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, the High Court had inherent powers to terminate the criminal proceedings and the Court held that speedy trial is the right of every accused under Arts. 21, 32, 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India. He also relied on Kaushlya Devi (Smt.) v. State of M.P., 2003 2 MPWN 102, to state that when there was no relevant material available to connect the applicant in crime, framing of charge is offending against the right of the accused under Article 21 and may be quashed by the High Court. Relying on Dhananjaya v. State of M.P.,2005 2 MPWN 346, Counsel stated that although the powers should be exercised sparingly in rarest of rare cases to quash criminal charge or proceedings, it can be done when there is no evidence to constitute an offence as alleged. Finally, Counsel relied on Vinod Kumar Rajput v. State of M.P. and another,2006 3 MPWN 358, Counsel submitted that under similar circumstances, for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with Section 120B and 415 of IPC, the Court had come to the conclusion that the case did not fall under Section 415 of the IPC and conspiracy is not proved even by circumstantial evidence and the charges were quashed.