File Could Not Travel From Ludhiana To Samrala For 49-Yrs, Average Speed Slower Than A Sloth: P&H HC Quashes Case Adjourned By Trial Court In 1977
Image Courtesy: Social Chai
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed the 49-year-old extortion case, observing that the trial was adjourned in 1977 awaiting file which was travelling at "one-sixth of the adorable sloth's speed" and never reached the Court.
The State could not produce the complete records of the case and only submitted that the man was neither acquitted nor discharged and the trial which initiated on FIR lodged in 1972, is still pending.
Justice Anoop Chitkara while quashing the FIR lodged against a man who now turned 79 years old, said, "the record cannot be constructed in this case because the people who have already expired and entered eternal rest cannot be brought back to life. This Court does not want to shorten the life of the sole surviving party by further continuing the proceedings."
"The heaps of paper files are a source of food for various insects and housing for fungi, and it would be unusual if the paper is not destroyed by molds, eaten by termites, mixed with others, misplaced, stolen, spoilt in floods, or reduced to ashes. However, now the technology has found a solution in digitization of the documents and depriving the insects and fungi of their food", the Court added.
Background
These observations were made while hearing the plea of a 78-year-old man, seeking quashing of FIR lodged in 1975 under Sections 353, 386, 342, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
The trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. However, the trial Court also summoned Amarjit Singh as one of the mischief mongers. Amarjit challenged his summoning before the Sessions Court by filing a criminal revision petition, and the Additional Sessions Judge at Ludhiana, vide order dated 08.12.1977, stayed the summoning order.
The petitioner's grievance was that the trial against him was adjourned sine die awaiting the final outcome of the Sessions Judge, but not finally closed; "it did not result in discharge or acquittal, it appears that there would be no chance of it in his lifetime," the Court noted.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that "the petitioner's predicament is that he does not have complete documents, and whatever he claims to have had was supplied to this Court and its copy to the State." The petitioner also applied for the records but the same was not available.
The Court highlighted that after 1977 "the matter has never been called again, and FIR has also not been closed, its fate awaiting the file from the Sessions Judge, which did not come."
"The file could not travel from Ludhiana to Samrala for 49 years, with an average speed of one-sixth of the adorable sloth's speed, and the distance of Samrala was roughly 44 km from Ludhiana," the Court observed.
It noted that deeply frustrated by the deadlock, the petitioner wanted the Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to close the pending proceedings before the FIR's "golden jubilee."
"Since the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, had suspended the summoning order, the trial Court did not proceed with the trial for the reason that he could not have segregated the trial of other accused from Amarjit Singh and waited for the outcome of the decision and as such, consigned the file to the record room with the observation that as and when the record of revision petition is received, the file would be taken up again. After waiting for five decades, the petitioner's patience has run out and he has given up," the Court noted.
The Court further added that the concerned court has stated in the order passed in May that the records pertaining to the FIR are not available in the record room.
When the Court had issued notice to the State on why the FIR, order of summons and further proceedings should not be quashed, the Court said that "State also woke up from their usual slumber." and in its reply opposed quashing FIR and other proceedings but admitted that they had no document.
Justice Chitkara noted that in the present case, all the accused persons have passed away and even the complainant did not survive, but the petitioner is "the sole surviving sufferer who is also suffering from his old age ailments and cannot further tolerate the agony of a pending FIR on his head."
The judge pointed out that the other document summarizes the police investigation recorded under Section 173 CrPC, which can only be used to contradict the police officials and is not substantive evidence.
"Thus, even if the documents annexed with the petition by the petitioner are taken as gospel truth, no evidence can take the case any further," it added.
Reconstruction Of Record Not Possible In The Case
The Court also highlighted that "it has been the consistent view of several High Courts that reconstruction should be ordered when records are destroyed by fire or because of natural or unnatural calamities."
Reliance was placed on Empress v. Khimat Singh, 1889 AWN 55, wherein the view taken was that the provisions of Section 423(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (corresponds to Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898) made it obligatory for the court to obtain and examine the record at the time of the hearing. When it was impossible to do so, the only available course was a direction for reconstruction.
Referring to Volume IV, Chapter 19 Part A of Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules provide for the record's reconstruction when lost, the Court said the the record cannot be constructed in this case because the people who have already expired and entered eternal rest cannot be brought back to life.
"This Court does not want to shorten the life of the sole surviving party by further continuing the proceedings," it added.
Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied
The Court observed that the initial delay ended all hopes of the petitioner, and the failure to decide in a reasonable time indeed extinguished all the hopes for justice reminding us of the adage “justice delayed is justice denied”.
Adding that the sole option left with this Court is to close this petition, with liberty reserved to the State to revive, the Court set aside the FIR, summoning order, and further proceedings.
Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, A.A.G., Punjab
Ms. Swati Batra, D.A.G., Punjab and Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, A.A.G., Punjab.
Title: Harvinder Kumar v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 228