'Investigation Can't Continue Indefinitely, Violates Article 21': Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes 15 Yrs Old Mischief Case

Observing that the investigation "cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed a criminal case pertaining to mischief by fire in which investigation was pending since 15 years.

In 2008 an FIR was lodged alleging that the accused had set fire to the complainant's truck because of personal rivalry. However, the police upon investigation declared the petitioner as innocent. Criminal proceedings have since been continuing whereas Investigating Agency repeatedly concluded that petitioner has no connection with the alleged offence.

In view of the above, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed, "The petitioner is subjected to unduly prolonged investigation. Fairness implicit in Article 21 confers a right on the petitioner to be tried speedily. The right to speedy trial under Article 21 encompasses all the stages of investigation, inquiry, trial. There is no justification for subjecting a citizen to an indefinite period of investigation."

"The inaction on part of the Investigating Agencies and the concerned Court in the present case cannot be accepted and it cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. The State is under obligation to ensure speedy justice to its citizens. The inherent fairness embedded in Article 14, 19 and 21 makes it obligatory for the State to provide a procedure which is fair, reasonable and just," added the Court.

Parminder Singh sought quashing of FIR lodged against him under Section 436, 120-B of Indian Penal Code (Sections 435/457/456/427 of IPC added later on) at Jalandhar.

The petitioner's counsel argued that in 2009, the Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar had submitted an untraced report to the Judicial Magistrate-I, declaring the accused "innocent." However, the Magistrate returned the report to the police station, directing "further investigation".

"It is no longer res integra that the fundamental concept of the criminal jurisprudence is to ensure speedy trial.The  Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that the right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The speedy trial would cover in its sweep investigation, trial, appeal etc. i.e. everything starting with the accusation and expiring with the final verdict of the last Court. No citizen can be deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair or just, such deprivation would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India," observed the Court.

Reliance was placed upon, Menka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and Another (1978) stating that the Apex Court has articulated the protection enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and has held that Article 21 confers a fundamental right on every citizen and not to be deprived of his life or liberty except according to the procedure established by law and such procedure is not merely some semblance of procedure but such procedure must be reasonable, fair.

Referring to Apex Court's decision in Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak (1992), the Court said, "the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused must be arrived at with reasonable dispatch."

In the light of the above, the Court observed the present case is not a case of grave magnitude and diabolic in nature which shocks the conscience of the society to prevent this Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.

Justice Brar said, "the Investigating Agency cannot be allowed to perpetuate illegal inaction and inflict more misery on the petitioner in violation of his right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to exercise its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to put an end to indefinite and protracted investigation pending for more than 15 years."

Consequently, the Court set aside the case and order of the JM-I to further investigate the matter.

Appearance: Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Madhur Sharma, AAG Punjab.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 238

Title: Parminder Singh @ Dimpy v. State of Punjab

Click here to read/download the order