STATE OF BIHAR versus BAIDNATH PRASAD@ BAIDYANATH SHAH AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 19-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ST ATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
BAIDNATH PRASAD@ BAIDYANATH SHAH AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 19, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. V ARIAV A, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
Section 482-Quashing of criminal proceedings-Prayer for discharge 
in a long pending criminal matter before Judicial Magistrate-Rejected-
Accused moved the High Court-High Court observed that the case is pending 
for several years-Nothing on record to show that delay in proceeding caused 
due to !aches on the part of the accused-Hence quashed the criminal proceed-
ings-On appeal, held, the seriousness qf the qffence involved is not to be over-
looked while considering the question whether delay alone is sufficient to quash 
criminal proceeding-High Court order set aside. 
Section 245-Applicability of-An order o.f discharge can be passed 
when Magistrate considers that no case against the accused has been made-out 
which if unrebutted, warrant conviction-Or when he considers the charges to 
be groundless-Accused cannot seek advantage qf the delay (f their contribu-
tion towards the delay was substantial. 
An F.I.R. was registered under Section 3 of the Railway Property 
(Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. After completion of the inquiry, a com-
plaint was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate on 13.1.92. The Magis-
trate took cognizance of the offence and instituted proceedings against 
accused persons including respondents. First respondent thereafter moved 
the Sessions Court in revision. The Sessions Judge quashed the Criminal 
proceeding on 29.5.92. Appellant moved the High Court on 1.4.94. The 
High Court overturned the order of the Sessions Court. Thereafter on 
account of the absence of accused the case remained in limbo till 14.10.96, 
when all the accused made their appearance before the Magistrate. The 
Trial Magistrate collected evidence and the case was posted for framing 
charge. On 5.1.1998, the accused filed a petition for discharging them, 
which was dismissed by the trial Court. Against the said order, respondent 
moved the High Court. The High Court quashed the criminal proceeding 
holding that the case was pending for more than 7 years and there was 
461 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
nothing on record to show that the delay in proceeding with the case has 
been caused due to laches on the part of petitioners and therefore the 
proceeding. against petitioners should not continue any further. In this 
appeal, the appellant-State challenged the Judgment of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The interval between 13.1.1992 (the date on which the 
Magistrate took cognizance of the offence) and 24.7.1998 (the date on 
which the High Court quashed the proceedings) is too long a period. If the 
criminal case remained without any progress during the said period it 
portrays a sad picture of the administration of criminal justice. But the 
uncontroverted fact/situation in this case reflects t~at the respondents-
accused have no justification in seeking advantage of delay because their 
contribution towards such delay was, by no means insubstantiaf. The ideal 
situation is to have criminal proceedings completed swiftly. But the ideal is 
far from practical attainment due to variety of reasons. If one has to abide 
by the ideal alone, then any p~riod of delay is enough to axe-down the 
criminal proceedings. In considering the question whether delay alone is 
sufficient to quash pending criminal proceedings, the seriousness of the 
offence involved is not to be overlooked. (463-H; 464-A-B; 465-B; E-F] 
Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal v. State of Maharashtra, (2001] 4 SCC 
525, relied on. 
Rajiv Gupta v. State of H.P., [2000] 1 SCC 68, held inapplicable. 
2. An order of discharge of the accused after collecting the evidence 
envisaged in Section 244 Cr.P.C., can be passed only when the Magistrate 
considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has . 
been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction. This is 
the legislative edict of Section 245 Cr.P.C. The only other exception to the 
said percept is that is it open to the Magistrate to discharge the accused at 
any previous stage of the case if for reasons to be recorded, the Magistrate 
considers the charge to be groundless. [ 464-G-H] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1075 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.7.98 of the Patna High Court in 
H 
Cr!. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.