RAM PARSHAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been field under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani relating to F. I. R. Nos. 80 and 82 dated 1-6-1968 under Section 409, 467, 468, 477, 477b, 109 and 120b of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE facts :the petitioners were employees of Bhiwani Rajputana Thola Ram Singh Co-operative Agricultural Service Society and the Bhiwani Central Co-operative Bank. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies Hissar wrote two letters to the Superintendent of Police, Hissar on 1-6-1968 on the basis of which two cases bearing F. I. R. Nos. 80 and 82 were registered at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani against the petitioners and others. About 15 challans were produced in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani against the petitioners on the basis of those two cases. In the year 1972 an application was moved to withdraw the criminal cases against one Anguri Lal, petitioner on the ground that there was only civil liability against him. The Judicial Magistrate Bhiwani gave permission to the prosecuting agency for withdrawal of the case against Anguri Lal vide his order dated 24-8-1973. The cases were, however, committed to Sessions Judge for trial vide order dated 3-1-1977. The Sessions Judge dropped the proceedings and sent the cases back to Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani for getting sanction from the competent authority to prosecute the petitioners. On 30-12-1978 the Judicial Magistrate passed an order to the effect that the case may be kept in abeyance as the proceedings had already been dropped by the learned Sessions Judge but that would not amount to any acquittal or discharge of the accused. The Ahlmad was directed to keep the file with him till police furnished a proper sanction for the prosecution of the accused. The proceedings remained in abeyance till the year 1988 when the petitioners were summoned by the court for their trial.

(3.) THE petitioners averred that the cases were registered against them on 1-6-1968 and the prosecution had not cared to submit all the documents to the court for about 20 years. No sanction for their prosecution was still obtained. The sentence for all the offences alleged to have been committed by them was not more than 10 years but they had already suffered agony for more than 20 years. This itself was a sufficient ground for quashing the proceedings.