1990 (3) TMI 385 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegations of torture and wrongful confinement by police officials.
2. Delay in filing the complaint and its impact on the case.
3. Legality of the standing counsel's appearance for the complainant.
4. Procedural delays and their attribution.
5. Adverse publicity and its impact on the fairness of the trial.
6. Inherent improbability and absurdity of the prosecution case.
7. Jurisdiction and power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings.

Analysis:

1. Allegations of Torture and Wrongful Confinement:
The complainant alleged that on 18th July 1974, police officials raided her house, ransacked her room, and took her along with two other women to the police station. She claimed that they were tortured by the police, including being burnt with lighted cigarette ends. The complaint was filed on 20th August 1977, and the Magistrate took cognizance, issuing summons to the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Delay in Filing the Complaint:
The complaint was filed more than three years after the alleged incidents. The court noted that while delay in filing a complaint can lead to embellishments and afterthoughts, in this case, the delay was not considered inordinate given the complainant's detention under MISA and subsequent parole and release. The court found that the delay did not inherently make the allegations absurd or improbable.

3. Legality of the Standing Counsel's Appearance:
Objections were raised against the appearance of Mr. A.P. Chatterjee, the Standing Counsel, on behalf of the complainant. The court noted that previous rulings had established no illegality in Mr. Chatterjee's appearance, as the alleged offenses were unconnected with the discharge of official duties by the accused police officers.

4. Procedural Delays and Their Attribution:
The court meticulously analyzed the timeline of delays, attributing most of the delay to the actions of the accused, particularly Mr. Guha Neogi. It was noted that frivolous objections and repeated legal challenges by the accused significantly contributed to the delay in the trial.

5. Adverse Publicity and Fairness of the Trial:
The accused argued that adverse publicity and demonstrations created a prejudicial atmosphere against them. The court acknowledged the demonstrations but did not find sufficient evidence that they influenced the judicial process or the fairness of the trial.

6. Inherent Improbability and Absurdity of the Prosecution Case:
The court rejected the argument that the prosecution case was patently absurd or inherently improbable. It emphasized that such determinations should be based on complete and thorough evidence, which had not yet been fully presented.

7. Jurisdiction and Power of the High Court under Article 226:
The court held that while the High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings under Article 226, such power should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The court found that the present case did not warrant such interference, especially given the incomplete state of evidence.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the judgment quashing the criminal proceedings, emphasizing the need for a thorough trial to ensure justice. The trial was directed to proceed expeditiously, with a timeline for completion set by the court. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for continuation of the trial.