'Unjust Inclusion In Chargesheet': Rajasthan HC Quashes Corruption Case Against Development Officer's 100 Yrs Old Father, 96 Yrs Old Mother
The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed a decade old charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act against a man's 100-year-old father, 96-year-old mother and wife after noting that no significant evidence had been brought out against them by the prosecution in last 10 years, and that they were included in the charge sheet in an unjust manner. Taking note of the parents old age, single bench...
The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed a decade old charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act against a man's 100-year-old father, 96-year-old mother and wife after noting that no significant evidence had been brought out against them by the prosecution in last 10 years, and that they were included in the charge sheet in an unjust manner.
Taking note of the parents old age, single bench of Justice Arun Monga in its order observed, "Moreover, petitioners No. 2 (father) and No. 3 (mother) are senior citizens, aged 100 and 96 years, respectively. Their advanced age and frail health make their continued involvement in this prolonged trial highly unjust and inappropriate. The burden of the trial on individuals of such advanced age who are not central to the allegations against petitioner No. 1 (primary accused) makes out a case of quashing their involvement in the case on compassionate ground if nothing else, which seems to be a reasonable ground, given that they are, really speaking, not the accused but merely name lenders to their son, if at all".
With respect to the trial, the high court, after perusing through the record, said that there had been a "prolonged and unreasonable delay of over 18 years in concluding the trial" when the FIR was registered in April 2006.
"This delay, despite no fault on the part of the petitioners, violates their right to a fair and speedy trial. The absence of any progress, despite the charge sheet being filed in 2014, raises serious concerns about the administration of justice. Such delay undermines the legal principle that justice delayed is justice denied. No doubt, conversely, justice hurried is justice buried. But the case in hand is of former category and not latter," the court emphasized.
The high court further said that the prosecution had failed to adduce any evidence "without any plausible cause" or make any "meaningful progress", since the charge sheet was filed.
It said that the prosecution's reliance on repeated adjournments without bringing forward any concrete evidence demonstrates its "inability to move forward with the case"; this situation "prejudices the petitioners" causing them "undue distress as they remain under trial on the basis of unproven allegations.
The court further said that during the investigation, the authorities seized the assets of not only petitioner No.1–Ram Lal Patidar but also his family members, including their personal belongings such as stree-dhan.
These actions, the court said, go beyond what is necessary for investigating disproportionate assets, "causing undue hardship to the entire family".
"The inclusion of unrelated family members in the investigation adds to the oppressive nature of the case against them...The advanced age and health issues of the petitioners' parents demand a humanitarian approach. Forcing individuals nearing the end of their lives to endure a prolonged legal battle without any substantive charges against them is both cruel and unjust. Given the lack of direct involvement of petitioners No. 2 to 4 (parents and wife) in the alleged crime, a compelling ground is made out for quashing the charges against them as they have already suffered the pangs of protracted litigation without even a flicker of light in the tunnel, during twilight years of their lives," the court said.
Noting the delay, prosecution's failure to present a strong case, the "unjust inclusion" of wife and parents in the charge sheet, and the parents' health condition, the court said that the chargesheet against Patidar's ailing parents and wife, deserves to be quashed and ordered the same.
The Court was hearing a quashing petition filed by Patidar (a development officer between July 1978 to April 2006) and the co-accused–which includes his aging parents and wife–citing inordinate delay in the case. In 2006, an FIR was filed against Patidar, who was a government employee, under the PC Act, alleging amassing disproportionate assets beyond his means of known income. A charge sheet was filed in 2014 in which along with Patidar, his wife and parents were also arraigned. Subsequently, the personal accounts of the co-accused including the stree-dhan of the wife were seized.
Case Title: Ram Lal Patidar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 256