LexRAM EKBAK MISSIR versus RAM NIWASH PANDEY@ SRI NIWASH PANDEY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B RAM EKBAK MISSIR v. RAM NIWASH PANDEY@ SRI NIWASH PANDEY AND ORS. OCTOBER 9, 2002 [M.B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] Criminal Trial-Delay in-Quashing of FIR--FIR against accused under section 302 !PC-Proceeding not placed before court for more than ten years- C Finally Magistrate taking cognizance of offences against accused-Accused filing application for dropping the proc.eedings in view of long delay-High Court dropping the prosecution case-On appeal held delay would not be a ground to drop the prosecution case since the accused is involved in serious offences-It is the duty of the court to see that neither the victim nor the accused suffers by the mischief of the investigation agency or the staff of the D court-Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149. On the fardbayan of appellant, FIR was registered under section 302 IPC. Investigation officer submitted the report. Appellant filed petition contending that the investigation was biased. Witnesses were examined in enquiry before the court. For unknown reasons the proceedings were not E placed before the Magistrate for more than ten years. Appellant made inquiry and Magistra.te took cognizance in the 1rnse. Accused filed a writ petition against taking of cognizance of the case. Accused relying on A.R. Antulay 's case contended that as the accused was not at fault and the criminal case had been dragged for a long period of 21 years case be F dropped. High Court accepted the contention and allowed the petition. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: For unknown reasons the proceedings were not placed before G the court for more than ten years and who played the mischief is not found out. The delay would hardly be a ground for dropping the prosecution where the accused are involved for the offences punishable under sections 302, 149, 148 and 147 IPC. It is the duty of the court to see that neither the victim nor the accused suffers by the mischief of the investigation agency or the staff of the court. Further at this stage, there was no H 162 I I RAM EKBAK M!SSIR v. RAM NIWASH PANDEY@SRJ NIWASH PANDEY [SHAH, J.] J 63 necessity of making any observations on merits by the High Court as that A is required to be decided at the time of trial or at the time of framing of charges. (165-8-CJ A.R. Antulay \'. R.S. Nayak, [1992] I SCC 225, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. L I 051 of 2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 11. l 0.200 I of the Patna High Court in C.R.W.J.C. No. 668 of 2000. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey and Ashok Kr. Pandey, for the Appellant. C Pankaj Kalra, T. Mahipal, Pradeep Misra and B.B. Singh and Saket Singh, for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. Leave granted. An FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC on a fardbayan of appellant on 5.8.1979. Thereafter, against the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, appellant filed Protest Petition stating that police has colluded with D the accused person~. In that petition, five witnesses were examined who E supported the FIR. It is the say of the appellant that in the meantime, he was taken into custody in connection with another offence under Section 302 IPC and remained in jail custody for more than 11 years and was released only in 1997. It is his further say that from the jail itself, he was trying to find out F what had happened to the FIR lodged by him. After release, it was noticed that for unknown reasons the said proceedings were not listed before the C.J.M. from 1990 to the year 2000. Ultimately, appellant made inquiry and he was able to trace out the file which was placed before the ACJM who took cognizance of the offence against the respondent accused for the offence G punishable under Section 302 I PC on 28.1.2000 and passed the fol lowing order: - "Due to non entry in the diary and due to missing of the file the case was put up today. Attendance has been filed on behalf of the infonnant. The advocate for the informant submits that this case was H 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A pending for orders from 1990 itself. Due to the fact that the file was missing in the office the same was not being produced in the court nor any order was passed. Today it has been found. Now after hearing order be passed. Heard the counsel of the informant and perused the records. Perused the statement of the complainant o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.