IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2288 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
N. THIMMAPPA S/O LATE NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS JUNIOR TECHNICAL OFFICER (RETIRED) CONTROLLERATE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ELECTRONICS (CQAL) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA J.C. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE NOW RESIDING AT GBJ 167, 5TH CROSS, II MAIN NEW TOWNSHIP, EAST EXTENSION MARATHALLI, BANGALORE-560 037 ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI. H.K. RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. H. KANTHA RAJA, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. C. JAGADISH, SPL. COUNSEL) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.18827/2010 INCLUDING THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2010 TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss 192, 196, 198 AND 420 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF VIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri H.K. Ravi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri C. Jagadish, learned Special Counsel for the respondent.
2. Petitioner is challenging criminal proceedings in C.C.No. 18827/2010 on the file of VIII ACMM, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 192, 196, 168 and 420 of IPC. The complaint was registered in the year 1985 alleging that the petitioner had obtained false Caste Certificate claiming himself belonging to ‘Kadukuruba’ caste, which is described as Scheduled Tribe. Petitioner was working as a Tracer. He attained superannuation and retired from services. Charge sheet has been filed on 04.06.2009, nearly 25 years after filing the FIR.
3. Shri H.K. Ravi, learned advocate for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others1, contended that speedy trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of 1 (2008) 16 SCC 117 the Constitution. No action has been taken by the State to cancel the Caste Certificate till 02.03.2009. Therefore, no FIR could have been registered prior to cancellation of the Caste Certificate.
4. Shri C. Jagadish, learned Special Counsel for the State submitted that obtaining a false Caste Certificate amounts to fraud on the Constitution and on the society and argued in support of the charge sheet.
5. Undisputed fact is FIR has been filed without canceling the Caste Certificate. Further, Charge sheet has been filed 25 years after petitioner obtaining the Caste Certificate.
6. In Pankaj Kumar’s case(supra), it is held as follows:
“17. Time and again this Court has emphasised the need for speedy investigations and trial as both are mandated by the letter and spirit of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code [in particular, Sections 197, 173, 309, 437(6) and 468, etc.,] and the constitutional protection enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Inspired by the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by a seven-Judge Bench of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India9, in Hussainara Khatoon (1) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar10, this Court had said that Article 21 confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except according to procedure established by law; that such procedure is not some semblance of a procedure but the procedure should be “reasonable, fair and just”; and therefrom flows, without doubt, the right to speedy trial. It was also observed that no procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as “reasonable, fair or just” and it would fall foul of Article 21. The Court clarified that speedy trial means reasonably expeditious trial which is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21.”
7. In the circumstances, prosecution against petitioner based on the present charge sheet cannot be countenanced as it amounts to abuse of process of law. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. Entire proceedings in C.C.No.18827/2010 including order dated 26.04.2010 passed by VIII ACMM, Bengaluru, are quashed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV