IMPORTANT POINTS
Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 482- Registration of FIR against appellant under Section 409 IPC -Petition for quashment of FIR-Rejected by High Court-Appeal- Though, delay had been alleged on the part of appellant, nothing on the record to suggest that appellant caused delay in the matter of investigation- On the contrary, silence on the part of respondent regarding availability of the original record or other evidence before the Investigating Agency showed that delay caused due to inaction on the part of the respondent- Keeping investigation pending for further period would be futile as respondent was not sure whether original records could be procured for investigation - Delay in the present case being caused by respondent, constitutional guarantee of a speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution held to be violated - As the appellant had already been exonerated in the departmental proceedings for identical charges, keeping the case pending against the appellant for investigation, held to be unwarranted-FIR lodged against appellant quashed-Appeal allowed (Paras 32 to 34)
       Facts of the Case :
        Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order passed by High Court, whereby it refused to quash the FIR lodged against the appellant under Section 409 IPC at Police Station, Dausa.
       Findings of the Court :
        A.During the investigation inspite of several requests made by Investigating Agency (Police), the records in respect of allegation were not produced. No evidence came against the appellant from the file of education department. Nothing on record, even by way of counter affidavit to show that record had now been traced to make it available to the Investigating Agency. There was no probability of finding out original documents or evidence mentioned in the counter affidavit.
        B. Though, delay had been alleged on the part of appellant, nothing on the record to suggest that appellant caused delay in the matter of investigation. On the contrary, silence on the part of respondent regarding availability of the original record or other evidence before the Investigating Agency showed that delay caused due to inaction on the part of the respondent. Keeping investigation pending for further period would be futile as respondent was not sure whether original records could be procured for investigation .
        C. Delay in the present case being caused by respondent, constitutional guarantee of a speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution was held to be violated . As the appellant had already been exonerated in the departmental proceedings for identical charges, keeping the case pending against the appellant for investigation, held to be unwarranted.FIR lodged against appellant was quashed.
       Result : Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 2nd March, 2012 passed by the Rajasthan High Court, aipur Bench in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.605 of 2006 titled Lokesh Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan. By the impugned order, the High Court refused to quash the FIR No.10/2000 lodged against the appellant under Section 409 IPC at Police Station, Dausa. The petition under Section 482 Cr.PC was disposed of by the High Court with the following observation:

“This criminal misc. petition has been filed under section 82 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.10/2000 registered at Police Station, Dausa.

This Court has asked the learned counsel for the petitioner whether challan has been filed or not. He replied that still challan has not been filed and the matter is under investigation.

If it is to, the petitioner is permitted to file representation/documents on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or any other Court, the I.O. Should investigate the matter on the basis of the judgment/documents/representation so filed by the petitioner and thereafter shall file progress before the court concerned.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.”

In order to appreciate the rival stands of the parties, it would be necessary to notice the background facts in a greater detail.

The appellant was posted as Lower Division Clerk (for short, 'LDC') during the period November, 1996 to November,1997 in the Office of District Literacy Education Officer, Dausa. On 4th January, 2000, the District Literacy Education Officer, Dausa registered a First Information Report (for short, 'FIR') in Police Station, Dausa alleging therein that when the appellant was posted as LDC-cum-Cashier, a financial irregularity was committed by him. As per the report of Auditor General, an embezzlement of Rs.4,39,617/- has been discovered. The original copies of the bills and documents were available in the office of the Auditor General and in the office of Directorate for the State Literacy Programme. Therefore, on the basis of report given by the Auditor General, the FIR was filed.

On the basis of report submitted by the complainant, the Police lodged FIR No.10/2000 of the incident alleged to have taken place in the year 1996- 1997, implicating appellant as an accused. After making investigation, the Police submitted a final report in the matter on 2nd June,2000 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa (hereinafter referred to as the, “CJM, Dausa”)

During the pendency of the matter before the CJM, Dausa, the complainant filed an application on 18th November, 2000 before the CJM, Dausa requesting therein to send back the matter to the Police for further investigation. The CJM, Dausa vide order dated 18th November, 2000, sent back the matter to the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. Since then the matter remained pending with the police. According to the appellant, he met as well as represented on a number of times to the Police Authorities and the Departmental Authorities but still no action has been taken by the Authorities. Neither final report is submitted nor the challan is being filed and the matter is pending since then. Earlier in the final report, it was stated that the Police informed that the original copies of the bills and another documents are not available, therefore, no investigation could be made.

Having waited for more than six years, the appellant preferred a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC before the Rajasthan High Court being Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.605/2006 to set aside the FIR No.10/2000 registered at Police Station, Dausa.

In the meantime, a Departmental Inquiry was initiated against the appellant for the same charges in which the Inquiry Officer after inquiry submitted his report on 15th December,2008 exonerating the appellant from the charges.

The High Court by impugned order dated 2nd March, 2012 chose not to interfere with the FIR and again

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 611

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAT.S. THAKUR, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.LOKESH KUMAR JAIN - APPELLANTVERUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN - RESPONDENTCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 888 OF 2013(ARISING OUT OF SLP(Crl.)NO.4513 OF 2012)Decided on : JULY 9,2013

IMPORTANT POINTS Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused.

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.
LOKESH KUMAR JAIN - APPELLANT
VERUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 888 OF 2013
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(Crl.)NO.4513 OF 2012)
Decided on : JULY 9,2013

IMPORTANT POINTS
Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused.