Judge Bench of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1512 of 2012 Tarakanta Mohapatra. …. Petitioner State of Orissa. …. Opposite Party -versus- CORAM: JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI
Decision
ORDER 22.06.2022 Order No. 21. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. The petitioner in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) has prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.12 of 2012 corresponding to V.G.R. Case No.12 of 2012 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge (Vig.), Bhubaneswar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since no case is made out against the petitioner, inasmuch as the allegation made against him is false and concocted, the prosecution launched against the petitioner may be quashed, more so when the Final Form against him has not been submitted though in the meanwhile ten years have elapsed. Page 1 of 5 // 2 // 4. As it appears, the F.I.R. was lodged on 17.01.2012. But, in the meanwhile though ten years have elapsed, no Final Form has been filed as gathered from Mr. Pani, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department. No material is also produced to show that the accused-petitioner has any contribution in such delay in submission of the Final Form. Mr. Pani also could not bring notice of this Court what prevented the Investigating Agency not to complete the investigation for a decade. 5. In the case of Vakil Prasad Singh vrs. State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 355, the Apex Court have held as follows:- of (In provisions “18. Time and again this Court has emphasized the need for speedy investigations and trial as both are mandated by the letter and spirit of the particular, Sections the Cr.P.C. 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 Vs. Union of India & Anr.4, in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar5, this Court had observed 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 there from 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.