1

A.F.R.

Reserved

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23675 of 2022

Applicant :- Madan Mohan Saxena

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Applicant :- Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari,Rishi Bhushan Jauhari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Kumar Singh

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Heard Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mukesh

Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the U.P. Power Corporation (opposite

party no.3) and Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State.

2. By way of present application, applicant made a prayer to quash the

charge-sheet no. 404 of 2003 dated 01.12.2003 arising out of Case Crime

No. 376 of 2003 and proceedings of Case No. 5276 of 2004, under

Section 39/49B Electricity Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District

Shahjahanpur pending in the court of ACJM-I Shahjahanpur.

3. The FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant on

15.10.2003 under Section 39/49 Electricity Act at Police Station Sadar

Bazar, District Shahjahanpur vide Case Crime No. 376 of 2003.

4. As per allegation applicant committed theft of electricity. After

registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced and after

investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant on

01.12.2003. After submission of charge-sheet, court concerned on

22.01.2004 took the cognizance and issued summons to the applicant.

Applicant appeared before the court concerned through counsel on

20.02.2006 and applicant was regularly appearing through counsel and on

06.08.2009 date was fixed 07.10.2009 for framing of charges and dates

were being fixed for framing of charges till 30.08.2013 and on 30.08.2013

without framing of charges dates were started being fixed for evidence

and since 30.08.2013 dates were continuously being fixed for prosecution

evidence till 13.12.2018 and on 14.01.2019 date was fixed 20.02.2019 for

framing of charges and original FIR was summoned and thereafter since

20.02.2019 dates are continuously being fixed for framing of charges and

summoning of original FIR. Therefore, it appears that for last about more

than 18 years neither charges could be framed in the present matter nor

original FIR could be placed on record.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is challenging the

proceeding of the present case pending against the applicant on the sole

ground that proceeding is pending for last about 18 years and although

FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2003 and charge-sheet was

submitted in December, 2003 and cognizance was taken in February, 2004

but even till date even charges could not be framed and even original FIR

is not on record.

6. He submits that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an

accused as well as of complainant guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India and for last about 18 years applicant is facing agony

of criminal trial without any fault and proceeding of the present matter is

pending for last about two decades. He next submits that according to

Article 21 of the Constitution of India no person shall be deprived of his

life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law

and such procedure should be reasonable, fair and just and inordinate

delay of 18 years in completion of trial cannot be said to be reasonable,

fair and just. He further submits, right of speedy trial is, therefore, a

fundamental right which has been infringed in the present case. He placed

reliance on the following judgements:-

(i) (1986) 2 SCC 414 Bihar State Electricity Board and another Vs. Nand

Kishore Tamakhuwala

(ii) 1986 (2) SCC 418 Commissioner of Income Tax Madras Vs. Shivakami

Company Private Limited

2 of 10

(iii) (2009) 3 SCC 355 Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar

(iv) 2020 (9) ADJ 15 Mahendra Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another

(v) 2020 (9) ADJ 16 Mahipal and another Vs. State of U.P.

(vi) Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 11924 of 2022 Dr.