2025 (1) TMI 1433 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Seeking quashing of FIR - prolonged trial - right to speedy trial - Petitioner has asserted that she was never involved in any illegal activity and cooperated during the investigations and had also provided all the documents to the Investigating Officer but the facts were not presented in a correct manner before the Court - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the FIR had been registered in the year 1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/468/471/120B of IPC 1860 and Section 50 (1) of the DST Act and Section 9 of the CST Act along with the allegations of Forgery Breach of Trust and use of False Documents. From the FIR the Chargesheet and the Charges which have been framed it is evident that the allegations made against the Petitioner are serious in nature. In Hussainara Khatoon (I) vs. Home Secretary State of Bihar 1979 (2) TMI 194 - SUPREME COURT the Apex Court observed that Article 21 of the Constitution of India confers constitutional right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be prescribed by law which should be reasonable fair and just. If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not fair reasonable or just such deprivation would be violative of Fundamental Right. It was further observed that deprivation of liberty of a person cannot be termed as reasonable fair or just unless such procedure ensures a speedy trial for the determination of guilt of such person. Therefore reasonably expeditious trial is an integral and essential part of the Fundamental Right and Liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further observed that peculiar facts and circumstances of the individual cases may be considered for quashing of the proceedings. The Apex Court in the matter of Santosh Dev 1994 (2) TMI 330 - SUPREME COURT it was observed that Article 21 of the Constitution of India recognises the constitutional right of speedy trial. It was also noted that the trial was not concluded within four years but in terms of Section 245 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 which was inserted in 1998 mandated that the trial be completed in four years. In the present case it cannot be denied that the FIR got filed in the year 1999 in which the Chargesheet came to be filed on 10.11.2003 and the Charges were framed in 2021. However since then testimony of 5 witnesses out of 17 prosecution witnesses has been recorded. None of the grounds as stated in the aforesaid judgments has been pleaded in the present case aside from the fact that the Petitioner has appeared umpteen times before the Court and is now 71 years old and is ailing. There is no case made out for quashing of the Chargesheet as well as of the FIR. Conclusion - There was no basis for quashing the FIR or Chargesheet. The trial court is directed to expedite proceedings to ensure a timely conclusion. Petition disposed off.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the FIR No. 280/1999 and the subsequent charges against the Petitioner under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC, as well as the Delhi Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, should be quashed.
Whether the prolonged trial period infringes upon the Petitioner's right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Whether there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges of forgery, cheating, and breach of trust against the Petitioner.
Whether the age and health conditions of the Petitioner warrant the quashing of the charges and FIR.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Quashing of FIR and Charges:

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Petitioner sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC, citing lack of evidence and undue delay in proceedings. The Court examined precedents such as Avdhesh vs. State of UP, Amit Rod vs. State of Uttarakhand, and Santosh Dev vs. Archana Guha, which emphasize the right to a speedy trial.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court recognized the serious nature of the allegations, including forgery and use of false documents. It noted that the charges were framed in 2021, and the trial was progressing with testimonies recorded from five out of seventeen witnesses.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Chargesheet indicated the misuse of 'C' Form No. 11P-572800 by a third party, M/s Grover Rubber Industries, to procure goods, which was central to the allegations against the Petitioner.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from the cited precedents to assess whether the delay and the Petitioner's circumstances justified quashing the FIR. It concluded that the delay did not meet the threshold established in previous cases for quashing proceedings.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Petitioner argued lack of involvement and cooperation with the investigation, while the State emphasized the seriousness of the charges and ongoing trial progress.
Conclusions: The Court found no grounds to quash the FIR or Chargesheet, given the serious nature of the charges and the progress in the trial.

Right to Speedy Trial:

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The right to a speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court referenced Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, which underscores this right.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's ordeal of facing a prolonged trial but emphasized the need to balance this with the gravity of the allegations.
Key Evidence and Findings: The trial's delay was attributed to procedural aspects rather than deliberate actions by the Petitioner or the prosecution.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court determined that the delay, while unfortunate, did not constitute a violation of the right to a speedy trial as articulated in the cited precedents.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Petitioner's age and health were considered, but the Court prioritized the completion of the trial given the serious charges.
Conclusions: The Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial process, aiming for completion within six months.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Court emphasized that "reasonably expeditious trial is an integral and essential part of the Fundamental Right and Liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution."
Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that while the right to a speedy trial is fundamental, it must be balanced against the seriousness of the charges and the need for a thorough judicial process.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court concluded that there was no basis for quashing the FIR or Chargesheet. It directed the trial court to expedite proceedings to ensure a timely conclusion.

← Previous Next →