S.T.) Act, Kushinagar (State v. Pramod Kumar Shahi and Others) as well as summoning order dated
Case Details
Court No. - 85 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24420 of 2021 Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Shahi @ Mantoo Shahi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Special Trial No. 582 of 2020, Case Crime No. 59 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Ahirauli Bazar, District - Kushinagar, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C.)/(S.T.) Act, Kushinagar (State Vs. Pramod Kumar Shahi and Others) as well as summoning order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the aforesaid court in respect of the aforesaid case, with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that the entire prosecution story is false and applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that impugned charge sheet dated 16.09.2020 and cognizance taken on 05.12.2020 by the court below on the printed proforma, is without application of mind and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submitted that the same controversy has been settled by this Court vide order dated 9.8.2021 passed in Application U/S No. 11334 of 2021 (Pankaj Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Another). Learned AGA opposed the prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. Fair and proper investigation is the primary duty of the Investigating OfÏcer. No investigating agency can take unduly long time in completing investigation. There is implicit right under Article 21 for speedy trial which in turn encompasses speedy investigation, inquiry, appeal, revision and retrial. There is clear need for time line in completing investigation for having in-house oversight mechanism wherein accountability for adhering to lay down timeline, can be fixed at different levels in the hierarchy, vide Dilawar vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 16 SCC 521, Menka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, Hussainara Khatoon (I) vs. State of Bihar, (1980)1 SCC 81, Abdul Rehman Antulay vs.