Dave Christopher Rodrigues vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1431 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Dave Christopher Rodrigues vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 January, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            W.P. (Cr.) No.710 of 2024
                                       ------

1. Dave Christopher Rodrigues, aged about 65 years, son of Douglas William Rodrigues, resident of Flat No.5211, Vijaya Gardens, Baridih, Near Marcy Hospital, Baridih Colony, P.O. Baridih, P.S. Baridih, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum- 831 017.

2. Sunil Rai, aged about 74 years, son of Parmeshwar Prasad Rai, resident of 933, Parasnath, Vijaya Heritage, Phase-03, Kadma, P.O. Kadma, P.S. Kadma, District East Singhbhum- 831 005.

3. Ajay Kumar Singh @ A.K. Singh, aged about 66 years, son of Indra Deo Singh, resident of 28-H2, O Road, Near G. Town Club, Bistupur, P.O. Bistupur, P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.

4. Shekhar Singh, aged about 66 years, son of N.P. Singh, resident of Flat No. C5/1603, Sector- 121, P.O. Noida, P.S. Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

                                                              ...             Petitioners
                                              Versus
                 The State of Jharkhand            ...                      Respondent
                                              ------
             For the Petitioner          : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
             For the State               : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II
                                           Ms. Surbhi, AC to AAG-II
                                                 ------
                                          PRESENT
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-      Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order

(s)/direction(s) for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of

Bistupur P.S. Case No.65 of 1989 corresponding to G.R. Case No.365/A of 1989

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 338, 304A of the Indian

Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 03.03.1989 while Tata Steel was

celebrating its 150th Birth Anniversary of the Founder- Sri Jamshedjee Tata, a

fire broke out at 10:15 AM in one of the temporarily erected pandals which led

to injury and death of several persons. On the basis of the fardbeyan of K. B.

Prasad- Inspector of Police, Bistupur P.S. Case No.65 of 1989 was registered

and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet and

the learned SDJM, Jamshedpur vide order dated 06.02.1993 found that the

prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for the offences punishable

under Section 338, 286, 304A of the Indian Penal Code and took cognizance of

the said offences. Since the offence is summon triable case, hence, the accused

persons were directed to remain physically present in the court for explaining

the substance of acquisition, thereafter, the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4

surrendered before the trial court and released on executing PR bond of

Rs.3,000/- on 03.06.1991 and on 15.06.1991, petitioner No.1 along with some

accused persons has also surrendered and executed PR bond of Rs.3,000/-. One

of the accused persons- Dr. J. J. Irani filed Criminal Misc. Case No.2046 of 1991

(R) invoking the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure in which the High Court called case diary and stayed the

trial.

4. It is next submitted that vide order dated 22.12.2011, the Criminal Misc.

Case No.2046 of 1991 (R) has been allowed along with the Criminal Misc. Case

No.2217 of 1991(R) filed by the co-accused P.N. Roy. Thereafter on 24.03.2012,

the accused person filed an application under Section 258 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for stoppage of the criminal proceeding but the same could

not be disposed of as C.Ds. is not available with the police and the court has

been issuing reminder letters to the Sr. Superintendent of Police. It is next

submitted that now the case is pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vakil Prasad Singh vs. State of

Bihar reported in (2009) 3 SCC 355 and submits that in that case, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India relied upon its judgment in the case of P.

Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2002) 4 SCC 578, para-

29(5) of which reads as under:-

"29(5) The criminal courts should exercise their available powers, such as those under Sections 309, 311 and 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to effectuate the right to speedy trial. A watchful and diligent trial Judge can prove to be a better protector of such right than any guidelines. In appropriate cases, jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions."

and observed as under in para-24 and 25:-

"24. In a monograph "Judicial Activism and Constitutional Democracy in India", commended by Professor Sir William Wade, Q.C. as a "small book devoted to a big subject", the learned author, while recording appreciation of judicial activism, sounds a note of caution--

"it is plain that the judiciary is the least competent to function as a legislative or the administrative agency. For one thing, courts lack the facilities to gather detailed data or to make probing enquiries. Reliance on advocates who appear before them for data is likely to give them partisan or inadequate information. On the other hand if courts have to rely on their own knowledge or research it is bound to be selective and subjective. Courts also have no means for effectively supervising and implementing the aftermath of their orders, schemes and mandates. Moreover, since courts

mandate for isolated cases, their decrees make no allowance for the differing and varying situations which administrators will encounter in applying the mandates to other cases. Courts have also no method to reverse their orders if they are found unworkable or requiring modification".

Highlighting the difficulties which the courts are likely to encounter if embarking in the fields of legislation or administration, the learned author advises "the Supreme Court could have well left the decision-making to the other branches of government after directing their attention to the problems rather than itself entering the remedial field".

25. The primary function of the judiciary is to interpret the law. It may lay down principles, guidelines and exhibit creativity in the field left open and unoccupied by legislation. Patrick Devlin in The Judge (1979) refers to the role of the Judge as law-maker and states that there is no doubt that historically, Judges did make law, at least in the sense of formulating it. Even now when they are against innovation, they have never formally abrogated their powers; their attitude is: "We could if we would but we think it better not." But as a matter of history, did the English Judges of the golden age make law? They decided cases which worked up into principles. The Judges, as Lord Wright once put it in an unexpectedly picturesque phrase, proceeded "from case to case, like the ancient Mediterranean mariners, hugging the coast from point to point and avoiding the dangers of the open sea of system and science". The golden age Judges were not rationalisers and, except in the devising of procedures, they were not innovators. They did not design a new machine capable of speeding ahead; they struggled with the aid of fictions and bits of procedural string to keep the machine on the road."

It is next submitted that as the right of speedy trial of the petitioners who are

the accused persons of the case is infringed; the court shall fix a time-frame for

conclusion of the trial court. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal

proceeding arising out of Bistupur P.S. Case No.65 of 1989 corresponding to

G.R. No.365/A of 1989 be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently

opposes the prayer of the petitioners.

7. Considering the fact that the petition under Section 258 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is pending since 24.03.2012, hence, this court considering

the fact of the case is inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition (Cr.) with a

direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur to dispose of the

application filed under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure within a

week of receipt of this order in accordance with law and in case, the same is

rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur is directed to conclude the trial of the

case preferably within three months from the date of the receipt of the order.

8. This Writ Petition (Cr.) is disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 08th of January, 2025 AFR/ Saroj