IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in completion of proceedings may not by itself be a ground for quashing proceedings. Regard should be had to conduct of the parties, nature of offence and the extent of delay.

Judgment

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. The appellants have called in question the order dated 6th July, 2009 of the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.2428 of 2009. Thereby, the High Court declined to interfere with the order of summoning and to quash the complaint dated 3rd May, 2008 registered as Criminal Complaint Case No.1066 of 2008 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, P.S. Atrauli, District Hardoi, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Hardoi. According to the appellants, the complaint and the proceedings were gross abuse of process of the Court having been filed after gross delay of 16 years after the incident.

2. The incident in question took place on 11th February, 1992. In respect of the said incident, there were two cross cases being Crime Case No.37/92 under Section 307 IPC registered against the appellants, and Crime Case No.37A/92 under Section 307 IPC registered at the instance of the appellants at Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi. The investigating Agency charge sheeted respondent No.2, which gave rise to Session Trial Case No.760 of 1995. After trial, respondent No.2 and three others were convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-each vide judgment dated 23rd September, 2009 by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I, Hardoi. However, an appeal against the said judgment is said to be pending. Respondent No.2, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he had also lodged a cross case. He also led defence evidence in support of the cross version. Having regard to the nature of injuries received on the side of the appellants and other evidence, version of the appellants was accepted and respondent No.2 and two others were convicted.

3. What is significant and undisputed is the fact that though respondent No.2 had registered Crime Case No.37/92 on 11th February, 1992 against the appellants and no action was taken thereon, he kept quiet till 11th August, 2005. Meanwhile, respondent No.2 and other co-accused were charge sheeted on 21st January, 1993 and session trial commenced against them in the year 1995. It was only on 11th August, 2005 that respondent No.2 filed an application for summoning progress report of Crime Case No.37/1992, so that the cross case against the appellants could also be tried along with the trial against respondent No.2.

4. Case of respondent No.2 is that no order was passed on the application but it was only on 1st February, 2008 that respondent No.2 filed another application. There is nothing to show if any other step was taken by respondent No.2 except on 11th August, 2005 and 1st February, 2008.

5. Application filed on 1st February, 2008 was disposed of on 20th February, 2008 in view of the report of the police that the appellants were exonerated during investigation and the report was filed before the Court. On 3rd May, 2008, respondent No.2 filed the impugned complaint alleging that the appellants had committed offence under Section 307 IPC on 11th February, 1992. The said complaint led to summoning of the appellants vide order dated 3rd June, 2009 which was impugned before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellants for quashing on the ground that allegation in the complaint and preliminary evidence led in support thereof made out a case for summoning and thus no case for quashing was made out.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. While issuing notice on 23rd November, 2009 further proceeding in Criminal Case No.1066 of 2008 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Hardoi was stayed and the said order has been operative till date.

8. Main contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the impugned complaint has been filed 16 years after the incident and for 13 and a half years after the incident, respondent No2 did not persue the matter. It is t