Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rekha Bhati vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 October, 2023
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:32585]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3885/2023
Rekha Bhati W/o Sh. Pawan Singh Bhati, Aged About 41 Years,
Taranagar, Teh. Taranagar, Dist. Churu (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Shankar Lal S/o Sh. Laxman Ji, Chief Block Medical
Officer, Community Health Center Kotada, Dist. Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
04/10/2023
Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for
quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No.222/2013 (State of
Rajasthan Vs. Rekha Bhati & Ors.) for offence under Sections 409,
466, 467, 468, 477 and 120-B of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR in
this case was lodged wayback in the year 2011 and after that the
chargesheet was filed against the petitioner and other accused
persons in the year 2013 and thereafter, the trial proceeded but
the case is yet pending for prosecution evidence. Counsel further
submits that in the copy of the challan, total 70 prosecution
witnesses have been cited and till now, only two witnesses have
been examined. Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2008 CriLJ 3944 and argued that
[2023:RJ-JD:32585] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3885/2023]
the proceedings are gross abuse of process of law and prayed that
the impugned proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer
made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that criminal
proceedings could not be quashed on the ground of violation of
right of speedy trial as it is only one of the factors to be
considered and varies from case to case depending on the gravity
of the alleged crime.
I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone
through the material on record.
According to the FIR, a specific allegation has been levelled
against the present petitioner that the petitioner embezzled a
huge sum of money under Government schemes by showing
herself as pregnant eleven times receiving a sum of Rs. 1700/-
each and even showing certain males as pregnant and receiving
money by way of cheque, causing huge loss to Government
exchequer. It is also mentioned in the ordersheeets that even after
giving several opportunities to the petitioner, she did not turn up
before the trial Court. In the opinion of this Court, right to speedy
justice enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
cannot be the only ground for quashing of the proceedings. It is
held by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that all the
attendant circumstances, including nature of offence, number of
accused and witnesses, workload of the Court concerned,
prevailing local conditions etc are to be weighed.
Supreme Court, in case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI reported
in 4 (2010) 9 SCC 368, even after 23 years of delay in
[2023:RJ-JD:32585] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3885/2023]
completion of trial, proceedings were not quashed and it was
observed:
"39. In the case on hand, though delay may be a
relevant ground, in the light of the materials which
are available before the Court through CBI, without
testing the same at the trial, the proceedings cannot
be quashed merely on the ground of delay. As stated
earlier, those materials have to be tested in the
context of prejudice to the accused only at the trial."
In the case of Ranjan Dwivedi Vs. CBI 3 (2012) 8 SCC
495, declining to quash proceedings even after 37 years of delay
in completion of trial, it was observed:
"23. The length of the delay is not sufficient in itself
to warrant a finding that the accused was deprived of
the right to a speedy trial. Rather, it is only one of
the factors to be other factors. Moreover, among
factors to be considered in determining whether the
right to speedy trial of the accused is violated, the
length of delay is least conclusive. While there is
authority that even very lengthy delays do not give
rise to a per se conclusion of violation of
constitutional rights, there is also authority that long
enough delay could constitute per se violation of the
right to speedy trial. In our considered view, the
delay tolerated varies with the complexity of the
case, the manner of proof as well as the gravity of
the alleged crime. This, again, depends on case-to-
case basis. There cannot be universal rule in this
regard. It is a balancing process while determining as
to whether the accused's right to speedy trial has
been violated or not. The length of delay in and itself,
is not weighty factor."
[2023:RJ-JD:32585] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3885/2023]
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sirajul & Ors. Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Reported in (2015) 9 SCC 201
has observed as under :-
"A criminal offence is a wrong against the
society even though committed against an individual
and thus the prosecution cannot be thrown out
merely on the ground of delay.
It is clear from the above observations that
mere delay in completion of proceedings may not be
by itself a ground to quash the proceedings, where
offences are serious....".
In the facts and circumstances of the case so also in the light
of the judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, no case for
quashing of proceeding in Case No.222/2013 (State of Rajasthan
Vs. Rekha Bhati & Ors.) for offence under Sections 409, 466, 467,
468, 477 and 120-B of IPC is made out. Hence, this criminal misc.
petition is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
312-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
