The Allahabad High Court has quashed a complaint case pending against Chandrakant Tripathi for 32 years where he was facing charges for giving false evidence during a murder trial.
A Single Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Chandrakant Tripathi.
The application under Section 482 CrPC has been preferred for quashing of entire proceedings, including order dated 21.07.2023, of Session Trial under Sections 194 & 211 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District- Jalaun, pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai.
The Court noted that the applicant had lodged a first information report on 20.10.1991 against one Salim under Section 302 IPC and in that matter after trial, the accused was acquitted by the order dated 10.06.1992. While acquitting the accused, the trial Court has directed to initiate proceedings under Sections 211/194 IPC against the applicant on the ground that during trial the applicant has not supported the prosecution version.
It was submitted by the counsel for the applicant that impugned proceedings are abuse of the process of the Court.
It is submitted that the said complaint under Sections 211, 194 IPC was lodged on 21.07.1992 and that since then the applicant is continuously facing the trial. The charges were framed after about 30 years also and no witness has been examined so far.
It was submitted that right of expeditious trial is a fundamental right of accused and in the instant case applicant has already faced proceedings for about 32 years and no witness has been examined so far and thus the right of expeditious trial has been violated.
It was stated that even in view of the nature of accusation, no case is made out against the applicant and that in view of attending facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending.
Counsel has referred the case of S.G Nain Vs Union of India 1992 AIR (Supreme Court) 603, wherein proceedings under Section 409 IPC were quashed on the ground that case has remained pending for about 21 years.
The Court observed that,
In the matter, it is apparent that aforesaid proceedings under Sections 194, 211 IPC were initiated against applicant by the complaint dated 21.07.1992 mainly on the ground that in Session Trial, the applicant being informant, has not supported prosecution version during trial. The applicant is facing the aforesaid proceedings since last 32 years and no witness has been examined so far.
From the case laws, it is apparent that speedy trial, which means reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to speedy trial and fair procedure has passed through several milestones on the path of constitutional jurisprudence.
The Constitution Bench, in A.R Antulay’s case, formulated certain propositions and held that fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Thus, in appropriate cases, proceedings may be quashed on the ground of long and undue delay in trial when such delay is not attributable to the accused.
“In this matter, the incident relates to the year 1991 and that accused was acquitted on 10.06.1992. The proceedings against applicant under Sections 194, 211 IPC were initiated vide complaint dated 21.07.1992. The applicant was summoned for those offences merely due to the reason that he has not supported the prosecution version during trial. The applicant is facing the aforesaid proceedings under Sections 194, 211 IPC since last 32 years and no witness has been examined so far. There is nothing to show that the applicant is responsible for delay in trial.
In view of these facts and circumstances it appears that it is nearly impossible to hold a fair trial of the applicant-accused after such a long time-lapse and it would be sheer waste of public time and money apart from causing harassment to the applicant-accused. Thus, the impugned proceedings against the applicant-accused are liable to be quashed,” the Court further observed while allowing the application.
In view of the aforesaid, the Court quashed the entire impugned proceedings, including order dated 21.07.2023 of the aforesaid complaint case, against applicant-accused, namely, Chandrakant Tripathi.