Back
2000 Supreme(Ori) 534
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
P.K. Tripathy, J.
MD. ISLAM - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - RESPONDENT
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2212 of 1999
Decided On : 18-04-2000
D. Samal, J.M. Mohanty and N.K. Das, for the Appellant;
The delay caused by the Investigating Agency may not be sufficient to quash a criminal proceeding if there is a prima facie case for the alleged offences.
Headnote:
Delay - Criminal Proceeding - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - P. Chiranjivi Vs. Principal, M. K. C. G. Medical College and Another, ;, Sri Harekrushna Mahatab Vs. Republic of India Jogendra Mahanta v. State of Orissa 1985(1) O.L.R.558,Rajkishore Mohanty v. State of Orissa Vol. 79(1995) C.L. T. 88 - The court discussed the delay in the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner and referred to various cases to determine if the delay caused by the Investigating Agency was sufficient to quash the proceeding against the Petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought to quash a criminal proceeding against him due to the long abnormal delay in the investigation and trial. The charges against the Petitioner related to forgery and fabrication of documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a prima facie case for the alleged offences against the Petitioner and that the delay caused by the Investigating Agency was not sufficient to quash the proceeding.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in the criminal proceeding, the existence of a prima facie case against the Petitioner, and the impact of delay on the Petitioner's rights and interests.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to various cases to establish the legal principles regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings due to delay caused by the Investigating Agency.
Final Decision: The court rejected the Petitioner's prayer to quash the cognizance order or the criminal proceeding, and dismissed the criminal misc case.
JUDGMENT :
P.K. Tripathy, J. - Delay in disposal of G.R. Case No. 1009 of 1998 has been fore-focused by the Petitioner to propel the prayer of quashing the said proceeding. Petitioner is one of the accused persons in the above noted G.R. Case pending in the court of S.D. J.M. Cuttack.
2. A scomfish investigation displaying a sad scenario in essence is the target of attack to scot free the Petitioner from the cage of a criminal proceeding where he with co-accused have been allayed for offences punishable under Sections 460/420/471 and 120(B), Indian Penal Code (in short, 'I.P. C.'). Petitioner's effort in that respect is propelled in this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code'). After scanning the lower courts record (which includes the case diary) relevant facts therefrom is stated, as hereafter, in pith and substance.
3. About a decade back on 18-7-1988, the Charge Officer,Cuttack belonging to (Settlement and Revenue Departments) having the occasion to opine about genuineness of some 'patta'(record of rights) pertaining to Oriiginal Khata No. 198 of Unit No. 7 and Sikim Khata No. 12 found the same to be fabricated for forgery. Thus, he requested the Inspector in-charge of Malgodown Police Station, Cuttack to investigate the matter. Accordingly, P.S. Case No. 97 (II) of 1988 was registered and investigation was taken up by Sub-Inspector of Police. On 8-11-1988, the investigation was made over to C. 1. D. (Crime Branch), Cuttack. After completion of investigation. on 29-8-96 final form (charge-sheet) was submitted against four accused persons for the aforesaid offences and it was stated in the report that Petitioner was an absconding accused. Discovery of the forgery by the Charge Officer was made when one Gouri Sankar Agrawal, a charge-sheet witness was persuaded to accept the aforesaid pattas as genuine and to purchase a piece of land covered by that patta. In that respect, as alleged, a sum of' Rs. 40,000/i. e., a part consideration money allegedly was received by the Petitioner but later on when this investigation started he returned that money.
4. On perusal of the case diary, it reveals that on 30-11-1989, the first investigating officer from the Crime Branch handed over the charge of the investigation due to his retirement. On 6-7-90, the second investigating officer handed over the investigation due to transfer and on 28-9-91,the latter handed over the investigation to the next investigating officer who, fortunately, though belatedly completed the investigation after a span of about five years from the date of taking charge of the investigation. It is devoid of doubt, on perusal of the case diary, that there was no effort much less a sincere effort to conduct and complete the investigation. Witnesses needed to be examined and records required to be verified were few. If the contention in the case diary is correct, then it goes to show the sleeping attitude of the concerned bureaucrats and the concerned ministerials in the offices of the Collector, Tahasildar and the Settlement Officer besides the concerned officer in the hand-writing Bureau of the State Government who shuttled the Investigating Officers from one office to the other when effort was made by him (Investigating Officer) to ascertain if the documents were the forged or fabricated one. It is wished that the higher and the apex authority in the Police and the Crime Branch Department should peruse the case diary of this case not as a measure to punish the wrong doer but as a lesson to learn regarding the lapses and to train the officers not to commit such mistakes and negligence while investigating into a serious crime of the present nature and at the same time, to impart appropriate direction/instruction to the superior supervising officers to kept track up investigation and to snap the callousness if any apart from coming to the rescue of the investigating officers while they deal with high officials in other departments while
