IMPORTANT POINT
Right to speedy trial flows from Article 21 of Constitution of India. Court can neither be a mute spectator to whims and fancies of investigating agency nor be a party to it.

ORDER

Sashikanta Mishra, J.—An FIR was lodged against the present petitioner on 24.10.2006 by the then Tahasildar, Chhendipada before the Officer-in-Charge, Chhendipada Police Station leading to registration of P.S. Case No. 132 dated 24.10.2006 for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 447/379/188/294/535/506 of IPC. The said P.S. Case corresponds to C.T. Case No. 1962 of 2006, which is presently pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Chhendipada. Final Report was submitted in the case after more than 15 years. The inaction of the investigating agency complied with inordinate delay is cited as a ground by the petitioner for quashment of the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings in the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. A reading of the FIR reveals that the petitioner had allegedly encroached upon three government plots measuring an area of Hc.1.8660 in village Kosala, for which Encroachment Case No. 46 of 2005 was instituted against him. Pursuant to show cause issued, he appeared before the Court (Tahasildar) on 06.07.2005 and admitted the fact of encroachment. Subsequently, the Tahasildar, Chhendipada issued prohibitory orders against the petitioner restraining him from going to the government land or from raising any crops thereupon. It is further alleged that the petitioner did not abide by such orders and raised crops, for which the Tahasildar directed the concerned Revenue Inspector to seize the standing crops as per law. Despite such seizure of crops, the petitioner is alleged to have forcefully entered into the plots and after harvesting the crops shifted them to the nearby field. When the Revenue Inspector, after coming to know of such fact rushed to the spot, he found the petitioner in the process of shifting and cutting the crops, and dissuaded him from doing so. It is further alleged that instead of acceding to such request, the petitioner abused the Revenue Inspector in filthy language and also threatened to kill him. The Tahasildar thereafter lodged the complaint before Chhendipada Police Station leading to registration of the case as above. The FIR was forwarded to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Angul on 28.01.2006, on the basis of which the above mentioned C.T. case was instituted. Since then, the case was adjourned from time to time till it was transferred to the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Chhendipada. It has come to light, from the instructions obtained by learned Addl. Standing Counsel that in the meantime, Final Report has been submitted basing on which notice has been issued to the informant but till date, he has not responded.

3. Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Maharaj, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

4. It is contended by Mr. Das that continuance of the case without Final Form being submitted for as long as 15 years by itself is an abuse of the process of Court. It is further argued that the petitioner is presently aged about 72 years and has been going through tremendous mental strain and anxiety because of pendency of the criminal case and the uncertainty attached to it. Since right to speedy trial is also a part of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is contended that inaction of the investigating agency for an inordinately long period of time directly violates such right, for which the proceedings need to be quashed.

5. Mr. P.K. Maharaj, learned Addl. Standing Counsel while admitting that the Final Form was not filed for as long as 15 years, however, contends that no time limit being prescribed for conclusion of a criminal proceeding, mere delay in submission of Final Form or Final Report, as the case may be, cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. On being asked by the Court, however, Mr. Maharaj is unable to cite a plausible reason for the inordinate delay in conclusion of investigation.

6. The facts as laid before this Court are not in dispute inasmuch as the FIR w