ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant’s son (Anil) was a student of MBBS at Government Medical College, Bikaner. He unfortunately died due to drowning in Sobhasar Pond near Bikaner. He was in the company of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 at that time.

3. The occurrence took place on 28.04.2010. The appellant appears to have made some complaints from 30.07.2010 onwards, alleging that his son was murdered. This led to the registration of FIR No. 101 on 01.06.2011 at Bichhwal Police Station, Bikaner, Rajasthan, under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The matter was investigated, and the police filed a charge-sheet on 30.11.2011 for offences under Sections 277 and 304A IPC, concluding that the respondents had allegedly bullied the deceased and they were present at the scene of the crime. The appellant, thereafter, moved an application on 16.05.2012 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, to add the charges for murder and sought further investigation, but his application was turned down. His Revision Petition before the Sessions Court was also rejected on 08.07.2013. Thereafter, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, framed charges under Sections 277 and 304A IPC on 07.03.2014. Meanwhile, the appellant approached the High Court for the addition of the charge of murder, but his petition before the High Court also met with the same fate.

4. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 then challenged the order of framing charges against them in a Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Court, but the same was dismissed on 18.04.2017. Thereafter, they approached the High Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which has been allowed vide the impugned order dated 02.08.2022.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-State, as well as learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and carefully perused the material placed on record.

6. We find that two factors have heavily weighed in the mind of the High Court while quashing the charges framed against respondent Nos. 2 to 7, namely (i) that there is an inordinate delay of about one year and one month in lodging the FIR for which the appellant has allegedly failed to provide any explanation and (ii) the High Court had made some observations in the earlier petitions, pointing out that the deceased was not intoxicated or that there was no foul play.

7. Both the reasons, in our considered view, are unsustainable. As regards the delay, the appellant’s case appears to be that the first complaint was made on 30.07.2010 and not after one year and one month, as urged before the High Court. The issue of whether there was an inordinate delay and, if so, does it affect the fate of a trial, is ordinarily required to be examined by the Trial Court at an appropriate stage. This cannot be per se a ground to annul the prosecution at the threshold.

8. As regard to the second ground assigned by the High Court, we find it difficult to hold that the prima facie observations made by the High Court in the previous proceedings between the parties can have any bearing to set at naught the prosecution itself. The allegation of “intoxication” or “foul play” is to be seen with reference to the nature of charges framed by the Trial Magistrate, namely, Sections 277 and 304A IPC. It appears to us that the element of ‘intoxication’ or any ‘foul play’ with the deceased may not have any bearing on the charges under Section 277 and 304 A IPC. It is, thus, difficult to uphold the impugned order passed by the High Court.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 7 vehemently contends that the continuation of trial proceedings against his clients will be an abuse of the process of law and a travesty of justice. He, in this regard, relies upon the decision of this Court in Satish Mehra vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2012) 13 SCC 614. We are, however, not impressed with the said contention. In Satish Mehra’s case, after investiga