Rajasthan High Court: In a petition filed seeking quashment of criminal proceedings for constructing of the road without approval from the Forest Department and subsequent cutting of tree under, a single-judge bench of Farjand Ali, J., quashed the criminal proceedings and extended the benefit to all accused, served or unserved and further held that even if some accused did not approach the court, proceedings could be quashed in rem.
“This Court deems it just and proper to extend the benefit of the present order in rem to all accused persons, irrespective of whether they have approached this Court or not, so as to uphold the principles of fairness, equity, and natural justice.”
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the Regional Forest Officer filed complaints against 17 individuals for alleged offenses under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, including constructing of the road without approval from the Forest Department and subsequent cutting of tree, before the Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, Hanumangarh on 30-08-2002. The offence
In June 2001, the Public Works Department (PWD) proposed constructing a road from Village Janana to Maharana without informing the Forest Department. Contractors engaged by PWD illegally cut down trees along the embankments without obtaining permission. Since no direct witnesses identified the tree fellers, laborers, contractors, and officers of PWD and the Irrigation Department were named as accused.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that the criminal proceedings is pending for over 23 years, thereby infringing upon the accused’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the accused have been attending hearings without any progress in the trial due to continuous adjournments for want of service upon unserved accused. The Court noted that the offense carries less than three years of imprisonment, yet the accused has faced prolonged trial without any conclusive evidence. The Court asserted that the State Government failed to ensure coordination between its departments, leading to procedural inefficiencies.
“This prolonged stagnation of trial is a glaring violation of the fundamental rights of the accused, as recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that a criminal trial cannot be allowed to linger indefinitely, especially when the foundational aspects of fair trial and timely justice are compromised beyond repair.”
The Court stated that there exists no direct evidence to establish that the accused were personally responsible for cutting the trees. The Court asserted that vicarious liability is questionable in the absence of clear directives from the accused. The Court opined that no reasonable possibility of a fair trial exists due to lack of direct evidence, unreliable witnesses, and procedural hurdles.
The Court emphasised that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent the abuse of the legal process and ensure justice. The Court further stated that even if some accused did not approach the Court, they should not be denied relief. The Court asserted that Justice should be accessible irrespective of socio-economic status. The Court noted that some unserved accused are likely to be laborers or individuals of limited financial means. The Court also recognised their right to access justice as free legal aid, as guaranteed under Article 39A of the Constitution of India.
The Court held that the legal conscience of the Court does not permit selective quashing because relief should be extended to all accused, served or unserved.
“The Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot permit a scenario where only those who have approached this Court receive relief, while others—who may be similarly placed but have been unable to appear before this Court—are left to languish in legal limbo. The scales of justice cannot be tilted in favor of those with the means and knowledge to seek redress, while those who are either unaware of their legal rights or constrained by their socioeconomic conditions are deprived of the same relief.”
The Court noted that key witnesses and complainants may be unavailable or deceased. The Court stated that in the present case, the memory reliability is compromised, therefore, making fair trial proceedings uncertain. The Court stated that the physical changes in the site make spot identification and evidence collection impossible.
The Court asserted that in the present case, “the accused, who have neither been convicted nor even put to trial after 23 years, have endured immense mental agony, financial burden, and social stigma for an act they assert was never committed by them. More so, the delay is not attributable to them but rather to systemic inefficiencies and procedural bottlenecks.” The Court held that prosecution serves no legitimate purpose and continuing the same would amount to “nothing short of a travesty of justice.”
The court referred to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, and emphasised on reasonableness and fairness in justice. While the Court acknowledged the principle of “audi alteram partem” (right to be heard), itnoted that an inherently flawed case need not be prolonged further. The Court held that allowing the prosecution to continue against those who have not yet been served, or who, due to their disadvantaged position, have been unable to approach this Court would be manifestly unjust.
“Justice cannot be a privilege reserved for the well-informed or well-represented; it must be equally accessible to all, irrespective of their socio-economic standing.”
Court’s Decision
The Court held that suo motu quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is warranted due to extraordinary delays and absence of substantial evidence. The Court quashed Criminal Regular Case No. 431/2015 and Criminal Regular Case No. 430/2015 and exonerated all the accused persons from the charges. The Court held that the relief applies to all accused, including those who did not approach the Court and those unserved.
[Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8867/2024, Decided on 03-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Vineet Kumar Jain Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Pravin Vyas, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. N.K. Gurjar AAG assisted by Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A., Counsel for the Respondents