2004 (3) TMI 789 - SC - Indian Laws

Long delay of 19 years in criminal proceedings - Consideration of material on record by the Magistrate before taking cognizance - HELD THAT - It is to be borne in mind that the appellant has been successively approaching the High Court every time when an order taking cognizance was passed by the Magistrate. It is because of the appellant that the criminal proceedings before the Magistrate did not cross the stage of taking cognizance. As earlier noticed since earlier judgments of the High Court have attained finality we are not going into correctness of these judgments. When third time the appellant was not successful before the High Court he has approached this Court and at his instance the proceedings before the trial court were stayed. In fact from 1986 till date the criminal case has not proceeded further because of the appellant. It would be an abuse of the process of the court if the appellant is now allowed to urge delay as a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. In considering the question whether criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed on the ground of delay the first question to be looked into is the reason for delay as also the seriousness of the offence. Regarding the reasons for delay the appellant has to thank himself. He is responsible for delay. Regarding the seriousness of the offence we may notice that the ill of untouchability was abolished under the Constitution and the Act under which the complaint in question has been filed was enacted nearly half a century ago. The plea that the complaint was filed as a result of vindictiveness of the complainant is not relevant at this stage. The appellant would have adequate opportunity to raise all pleas available to him in law before the trial court at an appropriate stage. No case has been made out to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground of delay. Having regard to the enormous delay we direct the trial court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within a period of six months. For the reasons aforestated the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of long delay in criminal proceedings and the consideration of material on record by the Magistrate before taking cognizance.

Long Delay in Criminal Proceedings:
The appellant, a District Ayurvedic Officer, faced criminal proceedings for 19 years due to a complaint under Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The High Court rejected the contention of delay as a ground for quashing the proceedings, emphasizing that the appellant's repeated petitions contributed to the delay. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's actions caused the delay and dismissed the appeal, directing the trial court to expedite the trial within six months.

Consideration of Material on Record:
The Magistrate, after multiple considerations, took cognizance of the offence against the appellant under Section 7 of the Act. The Supreme Court noted that the Magistrate's order was well-written, considering statements recorded by the police and witnesses, and applying the necessary principles for taking cognizance. The Court reiterated that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons, and the investigation is the police's domain while taking cognizance is the Magistrate's prerogative. The High Court rightly concluded that there was no need for interference under Section 482 of the Code regarding the Magistrate's order.