SIRAJUL & ORS. versus THE STATE OF U.P. &ANR.

Citation: [2015] 6 S.C.R. 1021 · Decided: 06-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 6 S.C.R. 1021 
SIRAJUL & ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. &ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 2011) 
JULY 6, 2015 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: s.307 - Cross cases uls.307 by C 
appellants and respondents in the year 1992 - Respondent 
no. 2 convicted uls. 307134 - In complaint against appellant 
u/s. 307, no action taken tiff 2005 - In 2005, respondent 
no.2 filed an application for summoning progress report -
D 
No order passed in that application - In 2008, respondent 
no. 2 filed another application - Application disposed of in 
view of report of police that appellants were exonerated 
during investigation -
Respondent no. 2 filed instant 
complaint alleging commission of offence u/s.307 by E 
appellant in 1992- Summoning order- High Court refused 
to quash order of trial court on the ground that a/legation in 
the complaint and preliminary evidence led in support thereof 
made out a case of summoning - On appeal, Held: Mere 
delay in completion of proceedings may not be by itself a F 
ground to quash proceedings where offences are serious, 
but the Court having regard to the conduct of the parties, 
nature of offence and the extent of delay in the facts and 
circumstances of a given case can quash the proceedings -
In the present case, the complainant stood convicted in a G 
cross case - At least for 10 years after commencement of 
the trial, he did not even bother to seek simultaneous trial of 
the cross case - The step taken for the first time in the year 
2005 should have been taken in the year 1995 itself when 
the trial against respondent No.2 commenced -
Having H 
1021 
1022 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A regard to the nature of allegations and entirety of 
circumstances, it will be unfair and unjust to permit 
B 
· respondent No.2 to proceed with a complaint filed 16 years 
after the incident against the appellants - Limitation - Delay/ 
/aches. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. While it is true that cases covered by 
statutory bar of limitation may be liable to be quashed 
c without any further enquiry, cases not covered by the 
statutory bar can be quashed on the ground of delay in 
filing of a criminal complaint in appropriate cases. In 
such cases, the question for consideration is whether 
there is violation of right of speedy trial which has been 
o held to be part of Article 21 of the Constitution having 
regard to the nature of offence, extent of delay, person 
responsible for delay and other attending circumstances. 
Mere delay in completion of proceedings may not be by 
itself a ground to quash proceedings where offences 
E are serious, but the Court having regard to the conduct 
of the parties, nature of offence and the extent of delay 
in the facts and circumstances of a given case, quash 
the proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 
482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse 
F of process of the Court. In the present case, conduct of 
the complainant-respondent no.2 can certainly be taken 
into account. Having regard to the nature of allegations 
and entirety of circumstances, it will be unfair and unjust 
to permit respondent No.2 to proceed with a complaint 
G filed 16 years after the incident against the 
appellants.[Paras 11, 17, 18] [1026-F-H; 1027-A; 1032-B-
C, E-F] 
Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty. (2007) 7 
H 
SCC 394:2007 (8) SCR 582; Vakil Prasad Singh vs. 
SIRAJUL & ORS. v. THE STATE OF U.P. &ANR. 
1023 
StateofBihar(2009)3SCC 
355: 
2009 
(1) 
A 
SCR 517; Ranjan Dwivedi vs. CBI (2012) 8 SCC 
495:2012 (7) SCR 329 Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI (2010) 9 
SCC 368: 2010 (11) SCR 669; NO/DA Entrepreneurs 
Assn. vs. NO/DA (2011) 6 sec 508: 2011 (8) SCR 25 
- referred to. 
B 
Case Law Reference 
2007 (8) SCR 582 
referred to. 
Para 9 
2009 (1) SCR 517 
referred to. 
Para 13 
c 
2012 (7) SCR 329 
referred to. 
Para 14 
2010 (11) SCR 669 
referred to. 
Para 15 
2011 (8) SCR 25 
referred to. 
Para 16 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal D 
Appeal No. 854 of 2011. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.07.2009 in 
Criminal Misc. Case No. 2428 of 2009 of the High Court of 
Judicature of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (U.P). 
M. Sufian Siddiqui, Rakesh Bhugra, M. Tabish Zia,Aftab 
Ali Khan for the Appellants. 
Arunabh Chowdhury, Gainilung Panmei, Karma Dorjee, 
E 
Vaibhav Tomar, Anupam Lal Das for the Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. The appellants
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.