Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rampyari vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4982/2022
1. Rampyari W/o Lt. Sh. Pancha Ram, Aged About 79 Years,
Village Gemliyawas, Teh. Merta, Dist. Nagaur.
2. Dayal Ram S/o Lt. Sh. Pancha Ram, Aged About 60 Years,
Village Aakeli-A, Teh. Merta, Dist. Nagaur.
3. Kishore S/o Lt. Sh. Pancha Ram, Aged About 51 Years,
Village Aakeli-A, Teh. Merta, Dist. Nagaur.
4. Kanwari Lal S/o Lt. Sh. Pancha Ram, Aged About 39
Years, Village Aakeli-A, Teh. Merta, Dist. Nagaur.
5. Jeevan Ram S/o Sh. Bhanwaroo Ram, Aged About 55
Years, Village Gemliyawas, Teh. Merta, Dist. Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SK Bhati, PP
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
12/09/2022
1. The petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
seeking quashment of the proceedings against them, which are
pending since 2000.
2. The case in hand is a glaring example of agony of an
accused, who has got to attend the Court on each date of hearing
with no progress in the trial and more so, when the case keeps on
getting adjourned for none of his fault.
3. The petitioners are facing trial for offences under Sections
147, 379, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, which according
to them they never committed.
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-4982/2022]
4. The brief facts which led to this prolonged prosecution are
that one Jeevan Ram lodged an FIR in the Police Station Merta
City alleging that the petitioners approached his bara and broke
the iron gate of the bara and stole its latch.
5. After investigation, the police filed negative final report on
25.12.2000.
6. The complainant filed a protest petition pursuant whereto,
the trial Court took cognizance against seven persons for the
offences under Sections 147, 447, 427, 379 and 504 of the Indian
Penal Code vide its order dated 03.10.2002. Bailable warrants
came to be issued to all the seven accused, out of whom five
persons (present petitioners) appeared before the trial Court and
furnished their bail bonds which were accepted.
7. However, summons could not be served upon one of the
accused- Pancha Ram and since 2002, the matter is pending for
securing his presence. Even arrest warrant issued against him has
not been served as yet.
8. A perusal of the proceedings of the trial Court reveals that
the matter is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate,
Merta (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') and the same is
being repeatedly adjourned for service of the arrest warrant and
yet said accused has not been apprehended.
9. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners expressed his
concern that even charges have not been framed in the case and
for trivial allegations, the petitioners are facing trial since 2002.
10. While maintaining that the trial Court ought not to have
taken cognizance, as there is no material to establish that the
petitioners stole the latch, learned counsel argued that suffering
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-4982/2022]
the trial for more than 20 years is violative of fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
11. He submitted that in the absence of whereabouts of such
accused, the trial will continue till eternity.
12. In support of his argument that in such case, interest of
justice warrants that the proceedings be quashed, learned counsel
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2009 SC
1822 and Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008
SC 3077.
13. Learned Public Prosecutor had nothing much to say,
particularly, in the face of the fact that the police had filed a
negative final report finding the case to be false.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material available on record including the order-
sheets, which have been placed on record by the petitioners and
having gone through the above referred judgments of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the
proceedings under challenge are liable to quashed.
15. The allegation against the petitioners is, that they had stolen
latch (not even the gate) of the complainant and broke the
telephone cable after entering his bara.
16. The purported incident took place in the year 2000 and 22
years have since passed. In the opinion of this Court, facing the
agony of trial, attending the Court on each date of hearing or
undergoing trial for more than 20 years is more disturbing than
the punishment that the petitioners may get on conviction by the
trial Court.
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-4982/2022]
17. The petitioner No.1 is aged 79 years and other petitioners
too have crossed the age of 50 years going to the Court. They
have participated in the proceedings for 20 years just for marking
their attendance. Right to speedy justice is a fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as held by Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon Vs.
State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1360.
18. Continuation of such proceedings in which there are hardly
any chance of proving the accusation, not only violates
petitioners' rights of fair trial but also clogs the justice
dispensation system, which enjoins upon the Courts to ensure fair
and speedy trial to all.
19. That apart, since the punishment even upon conviction is
less than 3 years, this Court deems it expedient to invoke its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for the relief claimed.
20. Hence, the proceedings of the Case No.42/2012 (State Vs.
Pancha Ram & Ors.), pending before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Merta are hereby quashed.
21. The present petition is allowed, the stay petition stands
disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
169-pooja/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
