JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Khanna, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State
2. This application has been filed for quashing the proceedings in case No. 1626 of 1998 pending in the court of Vth A.C.J. M., Moradabad, under Section 409 I.P.C. Police Station Chhajlet, District Moradabad. This application was moved in the year 1999 but there was no interim order staying further proceeding in case No. 1626 of 1998.
3. The facts giving rise to the dispute is that the applicant was posted as Managing Director Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited Lakhauri, Jalalpur, Block Sambhal, District Moradabad. The applicant was appointed as Secretary of the Co-operative Society and was posted at Fatehpur Bisnoi Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti in the year 1981. Thereafter he was transferred to Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Muda Pandey, District Moradabad. A first information report was lodged against the applicant on 4.1.1985 at case Crime No. 395 of 1985, under Section 409 I.P.C. Police Station Chhajlet, District Moradabad regarding an embezzlement pertaining to the year 1980-81. The first information report has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit. The applicant was suspended from service. 18 charges were levelled against the applicant in the departmental inquiry. The inquiry ended into and an order of termination of the applicant 2 passed on 9.9.1985. The applicant preferred an appeal before the Regional Administrative Committee under Regulation 60 of U.P. Preliminary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Centralized Service Regulation, 1978. The objection on behalf of the applicant was that the inquiry officer, who had conducted the departmental inquiry, was one and the same person who is complainant in the first information report. The departmental appeal was allowed and termination order was set aside. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the charges within a period of three months vide order dated 1.1.1986. A copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. The termination of the applicant has been set aside by virtue of an order dated 26.4.1986. At the time of filing of this application, the applicant was serving the department. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that on the same charges, the first information report was being inquired and investigated and charge sheet has been filed. The main ground for challenging the charge sheet dated 5.8.1991 is that the incident had taken place 18 years before and the prosecution of the applicant is pending since last 14 years in the court of Vth A.C.J.M., Moradabad. The applicant has 2 retired on 23.1.2000. Only submission of the counsel is that the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground of delay.
4. Reliance has been placed on a number of decisions of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Kapil Deo Shukla, A.I.R. 1973 S.C., 494,the Apex Court upheld the decision of the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused as the trial was kept pending for a period of 20 years, the case was being tried under Section 408 and 477A I.P.C. It was held that the circumstances on account of delay were likely to prevent the trial being altogether fair. It was neither expedient nor a larger interest to be allowed the trial to go on 2 (This view was confirmed in another decision by the Apex Court in the case of Santosh De v. Archana Gupta, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1229. In the said case, the prosecution was pending since 14 years and not a single witness was examined. The delay could not be attributed to the accused and proceedings were therefore, quashed. Just as in the instant case, the F.I.R. has been registered 18 years back and the trial is pending since last 11 years. It is noteworthy that no interim order staying the proceedings was passed by this Court while entertaining this application in the year 1999 and yet the trial has no: been completed. On the other hand, on the basis of the same evidence the departmental proceeding has ended into giving a clean chit to the applicant and exonerating the applicant from the charges levelled against him. In the case of Raj Deo Sharma v. The State of Bihar, 1998 A.C.C. (37), 834, the Apex Court ruled that the right to speedy trial arose from Article 21 and it encompasses the stages right from the date of registration of the F.I.R. and on (sik). In the case of A.R. Antule v. R.S. Nayak and Anr., J.T. 1991 (6) S.C. 431, the Constitution Bench of this Court dealt with the aspect of speedy trial. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. It is also in public interest and serves the social justice. In the case of Raj Deo Sharma (Supra) it was laid down that the Code of Criminal Procedure is comprehensive enough to (friable the Magistrate to close the prosecution if the prosecution is unable to produce its witnesses. Section 309(1) Cr.P.C. supports the view as it enjoy expeditious holding of the proceedings and continuous examination of witnesses from day to day. This provision also envisages reasons to be recorded for adjourning cases beyond the following day. In another case decided by this Court following the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Manmohan Vaidya v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1999 (1) J.I.C., 19 (Alld., it was held that speedy trial is one of the fundamental right required by a Constitution and if the trial takes 19 years from the date of lodging of the F.I.R. and 17 years from the date of framing of the charge, it is to be kept in mind the agony suffered by the accused for this long period can not be compensated
5. In the instant case, the accused is now retired. The charges levelled against him were found not proved in the departmental inquiry and he was subjected to undue harassment during the period he was under suspension and facing departmental proceeding, besides the criminal proceedings.
6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the various decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court coupled with the fact that the applicant was charged with an offence under Section 409 I.P.C. which provides the maximum punishment of 10 years whereas he has faced agony of facing criminal trial and till the date of his retirement and even subsequent, it is sufficient to hold that the continuation of the criminal proceedings is nothing short of abuse of the process of the court. The state has not filed any counter affidavit to the specific averment of delay in trial in paragraphs 23 and 27 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. Since the department has exonerated the applicant from all the charges, which is complainant, seems to be least interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings. In the circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings is nothing short of harassment and abuse of the process of the court.
7. For the reasons discussed above, the application is allowed and the entire proceedings in case No. 1626 of 1908 pending in the court of Vth A.C.J.M.. Moradabad under Section 409 I.P.C., Police Station Chhajlet, District Moradabad are quashed.