Brief Facts
- In the present case, the Petitioners sought the quashing of entire criminal proceedings instituted in 2002 pertaining to alleged offences under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953.
- The matter arose fromroad construction work undertaken in 2001 by the Public Works Department (PWD) without prior permission of the Forest Department. Pursuant to the same, Contractors allegedly engaged labourers to cut trees. Since, Forest Department could not identify the names of the persons who actually committed the offence, the names of laborers, contractors, and officers from the PWD and Irrigation Department were listed as accused persons.
- The proceedings remained pending for more than 23 years, with several accused having died, part proceedings already quashed in earlier revisions, and multiple accused still remained unserved.
Issues
- Whether continuation of criminal proceedings for over23 years without commencement of trial violates the accused’s fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21?
- Whether the High Court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, can quash proceedings in rem, including against accused who have not approached the Court?
Held
- The High Court allowed the Petition and exonerated all the accused from the charges, irrespective of whether they had approached the high court or not (order in rem). The High Court observed that the accused had neither been convicted nor even put to trial after 23 years, they faced significant mental distress, financial loss, and social stigma for an alleged act which now cannot even be proved due to the non-availability of direct evidence, the absence of witnesses, and the irreversible change in the physical condition of the scene of the incident. Therefore, the continuance of proceedings would be futile. The findings of the Court are as under:
- Long pendency of a criminal complaint without any progress till now, leaving aside commencement of the trial, in my view, certainly infringes the fundamental right of the accused.
- Right to have a speedy trial is recognized by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as an integral and essential part of the fundamental right of the life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the settled principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that until the guilt is proven, an accused should be presumed innocent.
- It is imperative to underscore that the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Even in cases where some of the accused have not approached the Court seeking quashing, the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not precluded from quashing the entire proceedings, particularly when the continuation of prosecution serves no legitimate purpose and the fact has brought before it.
- It is an axiomatic principle of law that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. 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.
Relevant Para No.
- 8, 9 and 12