'Inordinate Delay Made Trial Nugatory, Violates Article 21 Of Accused': Rajasthan HC Quashes 23-Yr-Old Tree Felling Criminal Case 'In Rem'

Justice Farjand Ali was hearing petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated in 2002 under the Forest Conservation Act and the Rajasthan Forest Act, pursuant to complaints filed by the Forest Department.

It was alleged that the Public Works Department (PWD) proposed construction of a road in a protected forest division without informing the Forest Department, and without obtaining permission, contractors and labourers were engaged to cut down trees which were legally protected.

Since there were no direct witnesses to identify the individuals who cut the trees, the labourers, contractors and the officers of the PWD department were named as accused. Out of all the accused, some passed away during the proceedings, while some still remained unserved, and waited for the trial to begin. The complaints resulted in criminal proceedings being instituted before the trial court in 2002, naming 14 accused persons. 

The Court thereafter said, "The legal trajectory mentioned above is sufficient enough to say that present is a case of glaring example of agony of an accused who got to attend the Court proceeding on each date of hearing with no progress in the trial, owing to the reason of adjournment for want of service upon the other accused and of course for none of his fault...Now, 23 years have elapsed after launching of the prosecution of a trivial nature, may be not trivial, but a serious offence that too, which as per the assertion raised in the petition, was never committed by them. Why the State Government didn't take care of coordination between their different department".

It further observed that there was no direct evidence to say that people who have been arraigned as an accused in the criminal complaint themselves either cut down the trees or ordered to cut down the trees.

“In the present case, the original complaint was lodged in the year 2002, and the criminal proceedings have remained pending for over 23 years. Several accused have already passed away, and a significant number remain unserved despite repeated attempts at issuing process. This prolonged stagnation of trial is a glaring violation of the fundamental rights of the accused, as recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India...Thus, even for those accused who have not approached this Court, the inherent powers vested in this Court enable it to quash the proceedings suo motu, considering the sheer futility of the prosecution and the irretrievable delay that renders any trial nugatory.”

The Court further opined that given the delay in the matter, most of the key witnesses would be either deceased, or unavailable. Even for those who were alive, it could not be known how accurately they will recall details of an incident that happened 23 years ago. The Court also highlighted that the physical condition of the spot where the alleged offence took place had undergone significant changes over past two decades. In this light, it was held that,

“when the substratum of the prosecution case itself is in doubt 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, any furtherance of trial would amount to a mere formality devoid of any meaningful purpose. It, therefore, appears that even if the trial is conducted, the entire exercise would be nothing more than an academic or futile exercise, given the insurmountable challenges in proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.”

In this background, the Court decided to allow the petitions, quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, and further used its inherent power to extend that benefit in rem to all the accused irrespective of them having approached the Court or not, to uphold the principles of fairness, equity and natural justice. It was observed that any differentiation between those who approached this Court and those who did not, would be against the touchstone of reasonableness.

“where the proceedings are found to be inherently flawed and oppressive, the Court is not precluded from extending relief suo motu to all similarly situated persons, even in their absence. Any differentiation at this stage would amount to an arbitrary classification, devoid of any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, thus violating the touchstone of reasonableness… Justice cannot be a privilege reserved for the well informed or well-represented; it must be equally accessible to all, irrespective of their socio-economic standing.”

The Court held that the justice could not be delivered only to those who had the means and knowledge to seek redress, and no unjust dichotomy could be permitted between those who were served, and appeared, and those who were still waiting to be served, and were left in legal limbo for facing indeterminate prosecution.

Accordingly, the petitions were allowed, and the criminal proceedings against all the accused were quashed in rem.

Title: Hari Singh & Anr. v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 52

Counsels for the Petitioners: Mr. Vineet Kumar Jain Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Pravin Vyas

Counsels for the Respondent(s): Mr. N.K. Gurjar AAG assisted by Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.