THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.477 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Ms. Pushpinder Kaur, learned counsel for the
appellant and Md. Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Home Department representing
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of Writ Petition No.9077 of 2023 filed by the appellant as the petitioner.
3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition for quashing of the charge sheet in C.C.No.787 of 2023 pending on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, wherein he has been arrayed as accused No.2.
2 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.477 of 2023
4. Appellant sought for quashing of the charge sheet on the ground that the same was filed after an inordinate delay of six years. Speedy investigation and speedy trial are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and for violation of the same, the charge sheet should be quashed.
5. It was contended before the learned Single Judge by the learned Government Pleader for Home that the delay in concluding the investigation and filing of charge sheet was on account of the conduct of the appellant who did not hand over the documents in his possession in his official capacity. Though the police had made repeated attempts to secure the documents, they could not do so because of the official position held by the appellant.
6. Learned Single Judge noted that the charges framed against the appellant are grave in nature. Evidence gathered by the prosecution points out a prima facie case against the appellant under Sections 417, 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and hence, charge sheet has 3 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.477 of 2023 been submitted. Learned Single Judge further noted that the charge sheet cites as many as 11 witnesses.
7. In view of the above and the fact that there are serious allegations of fabrication of certificates and thereby providing benefit of reservation meant for Scheduled Tribe candidates to others, learned Single Judge declined to quash the charge sheet, instead directed the trial Court to proceed with the trial expeditiously and to conclude the same within a period of six (06) months.
8. Though learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a settled law that speedy investigation is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and when the same is violated, it affects the rights of an accused and therefore the charge sheet filed belatedly to be quashed, we are not impressed with the submission so made.
9. According to us, learned Single Judge has gone into the substance of the accusation against the appellant and thereafter has come to the conclusion that present is not 4 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.477 of 2023 a fit case for quashing of the charge sheet. While it is true that speedy investigation is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the investigating authority is required to file the charge sheet as early as possible, as otherwise valuable rights of the accused who are in detention would be effected, the same is not the position in the present case. Appellant is holding an important office in the State Government and according to the State counsel delay in conclusion of investigation and filing of charge sheet is attributable to him. His case cannot be equated with those under trials who are languishing in jail for long periods without trial.
10. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that order of the learned Single Judge is within the domain of criminal jurisprudence as understood in the context of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, we are of the view that no appeal against such an order would be maintainable. We are fortified in taking this view by the decision of the Supreme 5 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.477 of 2023 Court in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana1 which has been applied by this Court in Writ Appeal No.36 of 2023 and batch, decided on 06.02.2023 (State of Telangana v. Tushar Vellapally).
11. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
_______________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 25.04.2023 KL 1 (2017) 5 SCC 533