Sr. No. 62

After Notice

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

WP(C) No. 1289/2020

CM No. 3981/2020

CM No. 3982/2020

D. B. Singh

…. Petitioner/Appellant(s)

Through:-

Mr. Sheikh Altaf Hussain,

Advocate

V/s

…..Respondent(s)

UT of J&K and others

Through:-

Mr. Mohd. Arif, Advocate for

respondent No. 3

CORAM : HON9BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE

ORDER

1.

Petitioner in this petition seeks quashing of challan titled State V/s

D. B. Singh bearing No. 26/2018 pending with learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Rajouri under Sections 354A, 354-D, 506 and 509 RPC or in

the alternatively to direct the trial court to speed up and wrap up the trial in

accordance with the trial courts and First Appellate Subordinate Courts

Rules 2010.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that he does

not want to press the relief with regard to quashing of challan but only

seeks a direction that trial Court be directed to complete the trial

expeditiously within some time period.

3.

The respondents have filed their status report and in terms of status

report, it is submitted that on 17.09.2018 the complainant filed written

complaint in Women Police Station, Rajouri against the petitioner with

regard to offences of sexual harassment at her place of work i.e. at the

2

WP(C) No. 1289/2020

office of Chief Animal Husbandry Office, Rajouri where she was working

as Junior Assistant. Accordingly, an FIR bearing No. 27 of 2018 under

Sections 354A/354-D/506/509 RPC was registered in Women Police

Station, Rajouri in this regard and investigation started. After the

investigation, the Investigating Officer presented the challan on

05.11.2018. The trial proceedings are pending before Special Mobile

Magistrate, Rajouri. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that

the petitioner earlier approached this Court seeking quashment of FIR by

way of CRMC No. 620/2018 but the same was dismissed on 01.02.2019.

4.

A perusal of the status report reveals that eight prosecution witnesses

so far have been produced and examined but production of other witnesses

could not be possible due to COVID-19 pandemic situation.

5.

The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of

the Constitution of India and it is an essential part of right to life and liberty

as guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The right to speedy trial is a

part of fair and just proceedings as guaranteed under Article 21. This is

envisaged at all stages of investigation such as inquiry, trial and revision,

so that any possible prejudice may not be caused to the parties from

impermissible and avoidable delay. This right has been undisputedly held

as right of the accused as well as victim by Hon9ble the Supreme Court in

catena of judgments.

6.

In 8Hussainara Khatoon and ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of

Bihar, 1980 (1) SCC 81 while dealing with Article 21 of the constitution

of India, the Hon9ble Apex Court has observed that :

“No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial

can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would fall

foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that

3

WP(C) No. 1289/2020

speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably

expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the

fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article

21. The question which would, however, arise is as to what

would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is

denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty

by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial in violation

of his fundamental right under Article 21. Would he be

entitled to be released unconditionally freed from the charge

levelled against him on the ground that trying him after an

unduly long period of time and convicting him aft