Rajasthan High Court: In a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the 10 years delay in trial process and seeking the quashment of the charges in the alleged corruption case, a single-judge bench of Arun Monga, J., quashed the charges against petitioner 2 (father), petitioner 3 (mother), and petitioner 4 (wife), citing the prolonged delay, lack of evidence, and the health conditions of the elderly parents and ordered the trial for petitioner 1 to continue with priority.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, an FIR was lodged on 19-04-2006 by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, against petitioner 1, and his family members (petitioners 2 to 4) for the alleged offenses of amassing disproportionate assets during his tenure as a Development Officer. Following a raid, the accounts and property documents of the petitioners were seized. Additionally, the personal belongings like “stree-dhan” of petitioner 4 (petitioner’s wife) and his daughter-in-law were also seized from a bank locker.
In 2014, after eight years of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, implicating petitioner and his family, including income derived from the petitioner’s brother, who was also in government service, for accumulating assets beyond their known sources of income. Despite the charge sheet being filed in 2014, no significant steps had been taken for trial progress for 10 years, prompting the petitioners to file a miscellaneous petition challenging the delay and seeking the quashing of the charges.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioners argued that the delay in concluding the trial is unjust, prejudicial, and violates their right to a speedy trial. The petitioners pointed out the advanced age and precarious health conditions of petitioners 2 (100 years old) and petiitoner 3 (96 years old) and requested the quashment of proceedings against them. It was asserted that the prosecution had not presented any significant evidence since filing the charge sheet, indicating that the allegations may be baseless. However, the prosecution argued that petitioner 1 is the prime accused and does not deserve any concessions, though it did not dispute the poor health of petitioners 2 and 3.
Moot Point
-
Whether the prolonged delay of over 18 years in concluding the trial violates the petitioners’ right to a fair and speedy trial?
-
Whether the inclusion of family members (petitioners 2 to 4) in the charge sheet is justified given their lack of direct involvement in the alleged offense?
-
Whether the charge sheet should be quashed, especially considering the age and health conditions of petitioners 2 (father) and 3 (mother)?
Court’s Analysis
The Court highlighted the importance of a fair and speedy trial and acknowledged that the delay of over 18 years, with no progress since the filing of the charge sheet in 2014, is unreasonable and violated the petitioners’ right to a just trial.
“This delay, despite no fault on the part of the petitioners, violates their right to a fair and speedy trial … Such delay undermines the legal principle that justice delayed is justice denied. No doubt, conversely, justice hurried is justice buried. But the case in hand is of former category and not latter.”
The Court found that the inclusion of petitioners 2, 3, and 4 in the investigation extended beyond what was necessary and caused undue hardship to the family. The Court noted that petitioners 2 and 3, given their age (aged 100 and 96) and health, should not be subjected to such prolonged legal proceedings. The Court opined that a compelling ground is made out for quashing the charges against petitioners 2, 3, and 4 as they have already “suffered the pangs of protracted litigation without even a flicker of light in the tunnel, during twilight years of their lives”.
“The advanced age and health issues of the petitioners’ parents demand a humanitarian approach. Forcing individuals nearing the end of their lives to endure a prolonged legal battle without any substantive charges against them is both cruel and unjust.”
The Court further highlighted the prosecution’s inconsistency, especially the fact that the petitioner’s brother was not being prosecuted due to the lack of sanction, which raised doubts about the overall credibility of the case.
Court’s Decision
The Court quashed the charges against petitioner 2 (father), petitioner 3 (mother), and petitioner 4 (wife) on compassionate grounds, citing the prolonged delay, lack of evidence, and the health conditions of the elderly parents. The Court ordered the trial for petitioner 1 to proceed without unnecessary adjournments and directed the prosecution to expedite the trial.
[Ram Lal Patidar v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2786, Decided on 28-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Vikram Rajpuohit, P.P. and Mr. Ratan Singh Rajpurohit, SI, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Counsel for the Respondents
