Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Suresh Chandra Rastogi – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. – Opposite Party
Application U/s 482 No. - 776 of 1987
Decided On : 25-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Daya Shanker Mishra, Karuna Shanker Rastogi, Ram Kishor

The right to speedy trial is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the court must consider the expediency in the interest of justice before filing a complaint for false charges or evidence.

Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C - Quashing of charges - Sections 193/211 IPC - 191, 195, 211, 340 Cr.P.C - Delay in trial - False charges - False evidence - Expediency in the interest of justice
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed an FIR in 1980 alleging theft, leading to acquittal of accused in 1985. Subsequently, a complaint was filed against the applicant under Sections 193/211 IPC. The applicant sought quashing of the charges citing delay in trial and lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in trial violated the applicant's fundamental right to life and liberty. It also observed that the mere expression of suspicion by the applicant did not amount to committing an offence, and there was no evidence warranting prosecution under Sections 193/211 IPC.
Issues: Delay in trial, False charges, False evidence, Expediency in the interest of justice
Ratio Decidendi: The right to speedy trial is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court must consider the expediency in the interest of justice before filing a complaint for false charges or evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quashed the charges against the applicant.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Karuna Shankar Rastogi Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shaunak Singh, the learned AGA-I for the State.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 24.12.1985 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri in a complaint filed under Section 193/211 IPC, which has been registered as a Criminal Case No.1191 of 1987: State Vs. Suresh Chandra Rastogi as well as the order dated 12.01.1987, passed by the aforesaid Court whereby charges have been framed against the applicant.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant had filed an FIR bearing Case No. 86 of 1980 under Sections 380 and 411 IPC, Police Station Muhammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri on 07.03.1980 stating that Ishtiyaq Ali and Hamid were keeping potatoes for storage in a room of the applicant. There was a wooden almirah in the wall of the room, in which some jewelery was kept. The applicant had gone to his shop in a haste while leaving the almirah unlocked and when he checked the almirah after coming back, the jewelery was not there and Ishtiyaq and Hanif had gone away. The applicant had expressed a suspicion that aforesaid persons had stolen his jewelery. Some jewelery is said to have been recovered from named accused persons, Ishtiyaq and Hanif and another article was recovered from one Imtiyaz, who was also made an accused.

4. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted. Trial court took cognizance of the case and registered a Case No.196 of 1983, which was decided by means of a judgment and order dated 23.03.1985 passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Mohammadi, Lakhimpur Kheri, acquitting all the three accused persons of the charges. It was observed in the judgment that it appears that the applicant had concocted the story in connivance with the police persons and a case was set up against the accused persons by showing fake recovery, which could not be proved in the trial.

5. On 23.10.1985 the aforesaid three persons filed an application under Section 340/195 Cr.P.C. stating that from the observations made by the trial court while acquitting them, it is manifest that the applicant has committed offences under Sections 193, 195, 211 IPC and he should be punished for the same.

6. The aforesaid application was allowed by means of an order dated 07.11.1985 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Mohammadi and a complaint was ordered to be filed against the application under Section 193(2) IPC. Accordingly, the Munsif Magistrate, Mohammadi filed a complaint under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of the applicant under Section 193/211 IPC. The complaint has been registered as Criminal Case No.1191 of 1987

7. The applicant filed his objection dated 15.05.1986 against the complaint. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate Mohammadi, Kheri passed an order dated 19.12.1987 framing charges against the applicant and ordered him to face trial.

8. The applicant has filed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 27.11.1987 and on the same day, this Court had passed an interim order staying the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1191 of 1987 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahimpur Kheri.

9. Although the application remained pending for more than 36 years, and the proceedings of the complaint are lying stayed since then, a counter affidavit was filed by the State only on 14.03.2023, which is formal in nature. The applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit.

10. The learned counsel for the applicant Sri. Karuna Shankar Rastogi has submitted that the FIR in question was lodged in the year 1980, judgment of acquittal was passed on 23.03.1985 while the applicant was merely 28 years of age. The order to file a complaint was passed on 07.11.1985 and the charges were framed on 12.01.1987. Proceedings of the complaint are lying stayed since 27.11.1987 and presently the applicant has attained 72 years of age. Relying