Telangana High Court
V. Srinivasulu Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 11 April, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
WRIT PETITION No.9077 OF 2023
ORDER:
1. The petitioner is V.Srinivasulu Reddy working as Deputy Secretary,
WCDA & SC Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Andhra Pradesh, filed the present petition with the following prayer:
"...to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ,
order or direction calling for the records pertaining to CC
No.787/2023 on the file and in the Court of the Honourable V
Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional metropolitan Magistrate
Court, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar and to quash the same as against
the petitioner herein, (A2) on the ground that the impugned charge
sheet which has been filed after an inordinate and unexplained
delay of 6 years is an abuse of the process of the Court and it is in
violation of petitioner's Fundamental Right to speedy investigation
and trial under Article 14 and Article 21 of the constitution of India
and also in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and
contrary to the latest judgment dated 16/12/2022 of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Hasmukhlal D Vora v. The State of
Tamil Nadu in Criminal Appeal No.2310/2022 and in Vakil Prasad
Singh v. State f Bihar, reported in (2009)3 Supreme Court Cases
355, and various other judgments rendered by the Honourable
Supreme Court from time to time on this point, and pass such order
or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the present case."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued mainly on the
ground that there is an inordinate delay of six years in filing the charge
sheet. There is no explanation for the said delay and the delay is in
violation of the fundamental right to speedy investigation. Learned
counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Vakil Prasad Singh v. State
of Bihar1 wherein it is held as follows:
"24. It is, therefore, well settled that the right to speedy trial in all criminal
persecutions (sic prosecutions) is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in
court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations
as well. The right to speedy trial extends equally to all criminal prosecutions
and is not confined to any particular category of cases. In every case, where
the right to speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed, the court has to
perform the balancing act upon taking into consideration all the attendant
circumstances, enumerated above, and determine in each case whether the
right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case.
25. Where the court comes to the conclusion that the right to speedy trial of
an accused has been infringed, the charges or the conviction, as the case
may be, may be quashed unless the court feels that having regard to the
nature of offence and other relevant circumstances, quashing of proceedings
may not be in the interest of justice. In such a situation, it is open to the
court to make an appropriate order as it may deem just and equitable
including fixation of time-frame for conclusion of trial.
30. Thus, on the facts in hand, in our opinion, the stated delay clearly
violates the constitutional guarantee of a speedy investigation and trial
under Article 21 of the Constitution. We feel that under these circumstances,
further continuance of criminal proceedings, pending against the appellant
in the Court of the Special Judge, Muzaffarpur, is unwarranted and despite
the fact that allegations against him are quite serious, they deserve to be
quashed."
3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Home would
submit that the delay was on account of the conduct of this petitioner by
not handing over the documents which were in his possession in his
official capacity. He further submits that the police, during the course of
investigation had repeatedly made attempts to secure the documents.
Since documents were not furnished, delay was caused-.
4. Petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.3142 of 2023 and this Court
dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn for the reason that the charge
(2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 355
sheet was already filed, as intimated by the learned Government Pleader
for Home and granted liberty to question the said charge sheet.
5. It is alleged in the charge sheet that A2 being government
employee had colluded with the other accused to play fraud by producing
bogus or fabricated certificates to be filed in the department for the
purpose of giving posts to other candidates, which posts were reserved
for Scheduled Tribes. In the charge sheet, the Inspector of Police has
stated that original documents were submitted in the OA No.4161 of
2015 which was filed in the Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal.
However, the evidence collected made out prima facie offence under
Sections 417, 420 and 120-B of IPC and accordingly, chare sheeted this
petitioner and three others.
6. There are in all 11 witnesses cited in the charge sheet, out of
which, six of them are investigating officers, two panch witnesses for
confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1. The other witnesses are
official witnesses.
7. In the present facts, the police has explained the cause for
delay in filing the charge sheet. On the ground of delay, this Court
is not inclined to quash the proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar's (supra) observed that
if the Court feels that quashing of proceedings will not be in the
interest of justice, the Court can make proper orders including
fixing the period for completion of the trial. In the present case,
there are serious allegations of fabrication of certificates and also
trying to provide posts reserved for STs to others.
8. In view of the serious nature of allegations, the proceedings
cannot be quashed. However, to meet the ends of justice, the trial
Court is directed to secure the presence of the witnesses and
conclude trial expeditiously, within a period of six months.
9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed off.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 11.04.2023
kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
WRIT PETITION No.9077 OF 2023
Dt.11.04.2023
kvs
