Prolonged criminal proceedings without evidence infringe the fundamental right to a speedy trial, leading to quashing of charges against the accused.

Order :

1. The instant Miscellaneous Petitions have been preferred for quashing the entire criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, Hanumangarh. These proceedings pertain to Criminal Regular Case No. 431/2015 and Criminal Regular Case No. 430/2015, arising from alleged offences under theForest Conservation Act , 1980 and the Rajasthan Forest Act , 1953.

2. Brief facts of the cases are that on 30.08.2002, the Regional Forest Officer filed complaints against 17 individuals before the Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra. The complaints allege that the Maharana Distributary, originating from the Amar Singh Canal and extending to Maharana Village, traverses land designated as a protected forest division. The Forest Department had undertaken afforestation and maintained the trees in the area. In June 2001, the Public Works Department (PWD) proposed constructing a road from Village Janana to Maharana without informing the Forest Department. Subsequently, during July-August 2001, without obtaining permission from the Forest Department, contractors engaged by PWD employed laborers to cut down trees along the embankments of the Maharana Distributary, which were legally protected. Since no direct witnesses could identify the individuals who felled and removed the trees, the names of laborers, contractors, and officers from the PWD and Irrigation Department were listed as accused persons. The road construction, executed without prior approval, also involved tree felling, which constitutes an offence under the Forest Conservation Act , 1980, and the Rajasthan Forest Act , 1953. Consequently, criminal complaints were lodged. After learning about the illegal tree felling, the Forest Department initiated correspondence with the relevant authorities. However, due to non-cooperation from the concerned government departments, an inquiry was sought.

3. Compounding Applications and Proceedings:

1. Criminal Regular Case No. 431/2015 M/s Ganesh Builders, the contractor, submitted an application for compounding on 23.07.2002, stating that the offence was committed bona fide and without requisite information.

An upfront amount of Rs.61,000/- was deposited with an assurance of full cooperation, including the payment of any additional amount determined through the compounding process.

Upon inquiry, the total computed amount was Rs.3,73,200/-, with Rs.3,12,200/- remaining unpaid.

Due to non-payment, a criminal complaint was filed, leading to the present proceedings.

2. Criminal Regular Case No. 430/2015 In a related case arising from FIR No. 781/25, M/s Ganesh Builders similarly applied for compounding on 23.07.2002. An amount of Rs.41,000/- was deposited towards compounding, with an assurance of cooperation. Following an inquiry, the total amount due was computed as Rs.2,90,400/-, with Rs.2,49,400/- remaining unpaid. The contractor's refusal to pay the outstanding amount led to the initiation of separate criminal proceedings under Section 3 of the Forest Conservation Act , 1980, and Sections 33, 42, 52, and 57 of the Rajasthan Forest Act , 1953.

4. Status of Criminal Proceedings: The complaints resulted in criminal proceedings being instituted before the trial court in 2002, naming 14 accused persons. Upon taking cognizance, the trial court issued process against the accused, out of whom 11 have been served.

5. Notably one accused, Rajendra, preferred Criminal Revision No. 29/2019, which was allowed on 08.07.2024 by the Additional Sessions Judge, leading to the quashing of proceedings against him.Seven accused—Ram Pratap Sharma, Om Prakash, Jaswant, Nathu, Mahaveer Prasad, Subhash, and Sohan—have passed away. Their demise is recorded in the trial court’s order dated 07.08.2024, and proceedings against them have been dropped. Four accused—Devkinandan, Shiv Prasad Yadav, Sohan Lal, and Rajendra S/o Bhadar Ram—remain unserved, and process is ongoing for their presence before the trial court.

6. The legal trajectory mentioned above is suff