KEDAR NARAIN SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr. Case No. 341/2003 for offences under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC on the ground of inordinate delay in the completion of the trial.

(2.) HIS learned counsel contends that charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and co-accused Ravikant Srivastrava as back as on 15. 9. 1993 in respect of an incident which took place on 15. 1. 1993. Co-accused Ravikant Srivastava has confessed his guilt in his statement in writing. There is no evidence against the petitioner and the case is pending for framing of the charges against the accused since 21. 4. 1994. Co-accused Ravikant Srivastava has jumped bail on 21. 5. 1994 and since then he has not been arrested. He has been declared as an absconder. The petitioner is attending court regularly and the documents which he has sought vide his application dated 30. 10. 1993 have yet not been received. He has, therefore, submitted that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner tantamount to abuse of the process of the court. The same should be quashed as against the petitioner.

(3.) BE that as it may, from a perusal of the report dated 19. 7. 2006, it is apparent that the trial in this case could not make much headway on account of frivolous application filed by the petitioner himself. The petitioner himself was not vigilant and was rather himself responsible for the delay to a great extent. The presiding officer and the concerned staff of the courts in which the case remained pending during these years also contributed to the delay by their apathetic and casual attitude and approach in handling of this old case in a most insensitive and routine manner. They were, therefore, responsible for gross dereliction in the discharge of their duties which calls for departmental action against them. I do not find it a case fit for quashing of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. The authority referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner being clearly distinguishable on facts does not help the petitioner.