V. Srinivasulu Reddy, vs The State Of Telangana,
2023 Latest Caselaw 1785 Tel

    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