LexLOKESH KUMAR JAIN versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 519 LOKESH KUMAR JAIN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 888 of 2013) JULY 09, 2013 [T.S. THAKUR AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s. 482 - Quashing of FIR - Investigation pending for more than nine years - In departmental inquiry on identical charges, appellant exonerated in inquiry report - Held: The instant case is a fit one, where High Court should have exercised its power A B c uls 482 - Records have not been made available to 0 investigating agency - Keeping the investigation pending will be futile as the department is not sure whether original records can be procured for investigation to bring home the charges -- Considering the fact that delay is caused by respondent, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy investigation and trial under Art. 21 of the Constitution has E been violated and as appellant has already been exonerated in departmental proceedings for identical charges, FIR is quashed - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 21 - Speedy investigation/trial. On the basis of the report of the Auditor General, noticing an embezzlement of Rs. 4,39,617, the District Literacy Education Officer, got registered on, 4-1-2000, an F FIR against the appellant, who was posted as an LDC- cum-Cashier during the relevant period in the said office. G The police submitted a final report on 2-6-2000, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who, on the application of the complainant, sent back the matter to the police u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 18-11-2000. Since there was no progress in the 519 H 520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. . A investigation, the appellant, having waited for more than · 6 years, filed a petition uls. 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court seeking to quash the FIR. However, the High Court declined to interfere. Meanwhile, in the inquiry report submitted on 15.12.2008, the appellant was exonerated 8 in the departmental enquiry. In the instant appeal, it was contended for the appellant that after filing of the closure report in the year 2000, no effective investigation could take place and the appellant was suffering the harassment for more than 13 C years; and that no purpose in continuing the investigation would be served as the appellant was exonerated in departmental enquiry report on the same charges. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 This Court has held that extraordinary power uls. 482 Cr.PC could be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of process of the Court. Need for speedy investigation and trial, as both are mandated by E the letter and spirit of the provisions of Cr.PC, have been emphasized by this Court in numerous cases. [Para 13 and 15] [526-C-D; 528-8] State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 F = 1992 (Suppl.) 1 SCC 335; Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2009 (1) SCR 517 = (2009) 3 SCC 355; Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979 (3) SCR 169 = (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 325 (1992) 1 SCC 225; P. G Ramachandra Rao v. State of Kamataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578 - referred to. 1.2 The instant case is a fit one where the High Court should have exercised its power uls. 482 Cr.PC. It is not disputed that in the Inquiry Report dated 15.12.2008 H LOKESH KUMAR JAIN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 521 submitted by the Inquiry Officer in the departmental A proceeding, the appellant was exonerated over the identical charges for which criminal case was lodged. Further, during the investigation inspite of several requests made by the police, the records in respect of allegation were not produced. No evidence came against B the appellant, from the file of the education department. The CJM, by his order dated 18-11-2000 on perusal of Final Report, in exercise of power conferred u/s. 156(3) Cr.PC directed the SHO to re-investigate the case with the assistance of complainant and to procure the original c records. However, for nine years, records were not made availa~le. [Para 27 and 32) [540-D-E; 545-E-H; 546-A] P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 631= (1996) 9 sec 1 - referred to. D · 1.3 There is nothing on the record, even by way of counter affidavit filed before this Court to show that the record has now been traced to make it available to the investigating agency. There is no probability of finding out original documents or evidence mentioned in t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.