Summary
A case was registered against the respondent, an officer of the Indian Police Service, under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, on 8.3.1984 but the investigation report was submitted to the Government on 17.9.1987. In November, 1987, the respond- ent filed a criminal petition for quashing further proceed- ings pursuant to the registration of the First Information Report contending that there had been inordinate delay in the investigation and that the prosecution had not filed the report as contemplated under Section 173 Cr. P.C. till he filed the petition. The appellant contended that the delay was occasioned on account of dilatory tactics adopted by the respondent and that the case was a complicated and time- consuming one. The High Court quashed the First Information Report and observed that wherever there was an inordinate delay on the part of the investigating agency in completing investigation, the case merited quashing of the First Infor- mation Report even.
The State preferred an appeal in this Court contending that the High Court's observation was too wide a proposition and it would be detrimental to the prosecution in future under all circumstances, regardless of reasons therefor.Dismissing the appeal, this Court,HELD: 1.1 No general and wide proposition of law can be formulated that wherever there is inordinate delay on the part of the 747investigating agency in completing the investigation, such delay, ipso facto, would provide ground for quashing the First Information Report or the proceedings arising there- from. [750H, 751A]1.2 A lethargic and lackadaisical manner of investiga- tion over a prolonged period makes an accused in a criminal proceeding to live every moment under extreme emotional and mental stress and strain and to remain always under a fear psychosis. Therefore, it is imperative that if investigation of a criminal proceeding staggers on with tardy pace due to the indolence and inefficiency of the investigating agency causing unreasonable and substantial delay resulting in grave prejudice or disadvantage to the accused, the Court as the protector of the right and personal liberty of the citizen will step in and resort to the drastic remedy of quashing further proceedings in such investigation. However, there are offences of grave magnitude which would necessari- ly involve considerable time for unearthing the crimes and bringing the culprits to book. Therefore, it is not possible to formulate inflexible guidelines or rigid principles of uniform application for speedy investigation or to stipulate any arbitrary period of limitation within which investiga- tion in a criminal case should be completed. [750B-F]1.3 The determination of the question whether the ac- cused has been deprived of a fair trial on account of de- layed or protracted investigation would also, therefore, depend on various factors including whether such delay was unreasonably long or caused deliberately or intentionally to hamper the defence of the accused or whether it was due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the accused. The Court, in addition, has to consider whether such delay on the part of the investigating agency has caused grave prejudice or disadvantage to the accused. The assessment of these factors necessarily vary from case to case. [750G-H]Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, [1986] 4 SCC 481, relied on.Bell v. Director of Public Prosecutions of Jamaica and another, [1985] 2 All England Law Reports 585, referred to.The Power of the Courts to stay a Criminal Prosecution,'1985 Criminal Law Review 175, referred to.In the instant case, the respondent was placed under suspension pending enquiry but was reinstated on the basis of enquiry report and further action was stopped. However, by a subsequent order dated 5th July, 1985 the earlier order was cancelled and a show cause notice for 748his compulsory reitrement was issued. The Central Adminis- trative Tribunal held that the order dated 5th July, 1985 was illegal and beyond the powers of State Government. This Court dismissed State's Special Leave Petition. In the meantime, the respondent was allowed by the appellant to retire peacefully from service on attaining the age of superannuation and the First Information Report and conse- quent proceedings were quashed by the High Court. In these circumstances, this is not a fit case for interference.[751D, E, G, 752A, C-E]See the full content of this document
Extract
State Of Andhra Pradesh VS. P.V. Pavithran
PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs.RESPONDENT: P.V. PAVITHRANDATE OF JUDGMENT01/03/1990BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J)BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J)REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)CITATION: 1990 AIR 1266 1990 SCR (1) 746 1990 SCC (2) 340 JT 1990 (2) 43 1990 SCALE (1)418CITATOR INFO : E 1992 SC1701 (39)ACT: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 173 and Investigation--Inordinate delay--Whether ipso facto a ground quashing of F.I.R.--Factors to be considered for determining delay-Speed.,v investigation and trial--Necessity for.Constitut...
See the full content of this document