The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for effective control and expedition in the judicial process, and the criticism of casual and callous proceedings in the criminal case.

1. The case at hand might possibly go down in the legal history as an illustration of how the judicial process can be defeated as long as one wants if those responsible fail to exercise control. The proceedings in a criminal case arising out of first information report (FIR) No.774/2000, registered by Police Station Connaught Place, involving offences allegedly committed under Sections 409/420/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), in which report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) were instituted way back on 14.11.2003 and have been successfully kept stalled for almost fifteen years with not a single effective step taken.

2. The petition at hand invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer for quashing of the criminal case was brought on 09.03.2015 on the basis of some terms settled with the complainants’ side but has remained pending now for over 3½ years, the pendency of these proceedings and some of the orders passed therein having also been misused to keep the Metropolitan Magistrate at bay from making any progress. Unfortunately, all agencies involved including the prosecution, the defence and the judicial apparatus have aided and assisted in the design of the petitioners to keep the cliched long arm of the law away for the last eighteen years after the offences were allegedly committed.

3. The above can be demonstrated by taking note of how the case before the trial court proceeded.

4. As mentioned above, the charge sheet was filed on 14.11.2003. The petitioners are the two persons who had been sent up for trial for allegedly committing the aforementioned offences. The second petitioner is the sister of the first petitioner. On 08.04.2004, a counsel appeared on their behalf and took exemption for their personal appearance. The matter was adjourned to 19.07.2004. On 19.07.2004, none appeared and so the trial magistrate issued non-bailable warrant (NBW) with notices to sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C. for 27.04.2005. On 04.09.2004, the first petitioner moved application for cancellation of NBW which was granted, subject to payment of Rs.100/- as penalty. Since both petitioners have been together in contest, including by the petition before this court, it has to be assumed that the second petitioner would be privy to the duress process that had been issued by order dated 19.07.2004. Yet, no immediate move on her behalf was made.

5. On 27.04.2005, both petitioners appeared together with a counsel. The application of second petitioner for cancellation of NBWs was also considered and granted, both being released on bail. On 15.10.2005, the first petitioner again took exemption and the matter again was adjourned. On 13.12.2005, it was the turn of the second petitioner to seek exemption. The matter again stood adjourned. On 22.03.2006, once again exemption was taken for the second petitioner. It was stated before the magistrate that the dispute had been compromised with “all the investors” and payments had been made to them. Adjournment was taken to move for “compounding”. On 28.07.2006, the magistrate granted exemption to the second petitioner and noted that the petitioners intended to move this court for getting the FIR quashed. The case was adjourned to 27.10.2006 for consideration of the issue of charge. On 27.10.2006, exemption was taken and matter was again adjourned. On 24.01.2007, exemption was again granted and matter adjourned for the same purpose.

6. The above continued till 12.07.2007, when the petitioners were again absent, leading to NBWs being issued against them, which were cancelled by a very cryptic order on 04.08.2007. Yet, on the very next date, i.e., 29.10.2007, the first petitioner was again absent leading to fresh NBWs being issued against both the petitioners with notices to their sureties. These duress processes were cancelled by order dated 14.11.2007, subject to penalty of Rs.500/- each.

7. The matter was aga