2021 (9) TMI 1351 - HC - Indian Laws

Framing of charges - calendar case has been pending from 22 years without any effective progress - collection of substantial sums of money from the public and misappropriating the same - offence under Section 120 (b) IPC read with Sections 420, 409 IPC read with 34 IPC - H ELD THAT - The present prosecution is for a wider range of offences and it is seen that it involves 2077 depositors who claim that a sum of ₹ 42,48,81,169/- had been collected. The actual role of the present petitioner can be examined only when the evidence is analyzed. It is a fact that the matter has been pending for the past 22 years, but as pointed out by the Constitution Bench, the reasons for the delay will have to be examined. The prosecution has claimed justification stating that some accused had died, some accused are absconding, one of the accused has gone abroad and such other factors. The prosecution cannot commence the trial if the accused make a determined effort to scuttle the trial process by alternatively absconding themselves. The accused will then have to face the consequences of delay in the trial process - every accused has a right of speedy trial and unwarranted delay violates the fundamental right guaranteed Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But at the same time, it must also be examined whether the accused were either directly or indirectly the reasons for such delay. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, may carefully examine there is a deliberate attempt being made by the accused to absent themselves in turns from appearing before the Court. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, may then exercise the resort to Section 309 Cr.P.C. - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in framing charges in a criminal case; Violation of right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner; Examination of the role of the petitioner in the alleged offences; Consideration of the reasons for delay in trial proceedings; Directions to the Trial Court for expeditious trial.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash a calendar case pending since 1999, alleging that charges had not been framed, and progress was stagnant. Citing the right to speedy trial as per a Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner claimed innocence due to resignation from the company and past acquittal in a related case. The Investigating Officer countered, detailing the formation of companies, misappropriation allegations, and the petitioner's involvement as a Director. Various legal maneuvers and delays were highlighted, including deaths, discharges, and absconding of accused individuals.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the prolonged delay in framing charges violated the petitioner's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Referring to legal precedents, the counsel emphasized the need for a balanced approach considering factors like length of delay, justification, accused's assertion of rights, and prejudice caused. The counsel urged for quashing the proceedings due to the extended delay of 22 years without progress or charge framing.

After considering the arguments and case records, the Court acknowledged the prolonged pendency of the case involving multiple accused, deaths, and absconding individuals. The Court noted the petitioner's role as a Director and the wide range of offences and depositors involved, emphasizing that the petitioner's involvement needed to be determined through trial evidence. Despite the delay, the Court highlighted the prosecution's justifications for delays due to various factors.

While recognizing the right to speedy trial, the Court emphasized the need to examine if delays were caused by the accused themselves. Considering the gravity of the offences and the need for expeditious trial, the Court declined to quash the proceedings. Instead, the Court issued directions to the Trial Court to prevent adjournments, consider splitting the case, and expedite the trial process, ensuring regular hearings and witness examination.

In conclusion, the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial diligently, taking necessary steps to avoid delays and expedite the legal process.