- (1.) This is a revision u/s. 397 Cr. P.C.against the order dated 15-3-94 passed by the IIIrd Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, whereby the learned IIIrd Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge has rejected the application u/s. 321 Cr. P.C.seeking withdrawal from the prosecution of the accused in more than 55 cases, including murder, dacoity etc. It was alleged that atrocities have been committed upon her and members of her family by the persons belonging to upper castes and she was also a victim of gang rape, which drove her to adopt a life of crime. This criminal past is the cause for a large number of criminal cases for offences of dacoity, murder etc, against her in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. It was further alleged that she had surrendered on certain terms and conditions offered to her by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Those terms included inter alia, that (a) she would be released from the custody after 8 years (b) she would be tried in the courts of Madhya Pradesh only even for the crimes alleged to have been committed by her in the State of Uttar Pradesh and (c) the death penalty would not be imposed upon her in any case.
(2.) On this basis, she claimed that custody for 11 years undergone by her, is sufficient to satisfy this requirement and prosecutions pending against her in the courts of Uttar Pradesh, should be quashed. According to her, there are about 55 cases of Criminal nature being prosecuted against her in the courts of Uttar Pradesh for the alleged heinous crimes, like murder, dacoity etc. It is also admitted that the State of Uttar Pradesh was not a party in the alleged agreement between her and the State of Madhya Pradesh, in pursuance of which she had surrendered in Madhya Pradesh.
(3.) She approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and prayed that the prosecution against her be quashed in Uttar Pradesh also and she be granted permanent bail acquittal. That was Criminal Writ Petition No. 43 of 1993. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in that case (reported in 1996 (8) SC 208 (1997 SCC (Cri) 1), Phoolan Devi v. State of Madhya Pradesh that she submitted that to honour this commitment made by her before the Madhya Pradesh Government she did not challenge the order dated 13-8-96 passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh in pursuance of the exercise of powers u/S.268 Cr. P.C.even though that order was invalid for continuing the petitioner in detention in the Central Jail at Gwalior (M.P.), she also filed a transfer petition (Criminal) No. 36 of 1992 praying for transfer of all criminal cases against her pending in the courts of Uttar Pradesh to the Special Court at Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh. That transfer petition is still pending for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the aforesaid Criminal Writ Petition 43 of 1993, 1996 (8) SC (1997 SCC (Cri) 1) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 5 as follows : Para 5 page No. 210. "In our opinion, the limited scope of this writ petition is the question of the release of the petitioner from custody on the present facts ... The question of the contest and effect of the terms of surrender alleged by the petitioner has to be raised and decided in the criminal cases pending against the petitioner. The same cannot be raised on the basis of an omnibus statement in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. . . . . . . . . . ... the State of Uttar Pradesh has moved an application in each trial pending in the courts of Uttar Pradesh seeking leave to withdraw the prosecution. This aspect based on the alleged terms of the surrender may have relevance in those proceedings requiring consideration of the same in the facts of each prosecution. The question whether the blame for the entire delay in the prosecution/trial in each of those criminal cases lies on the State alone and not on the petitioner is a question of fact to be considered in each of those cases. Merely because of the lapse of several years since the commencement of those prosecutions, it cannot be said that for that reason alone the continuance of the prosecutions would violate the petitioner's right to speedy trial. Similarly, the cumulative effect of the terms of the alleged surrender have to be examined on the same being duly proved in those prosecutions to decide the merits of the contention that the petitioner is not liable for any further punishment as claimed by her. The mere fact that the alleged terms offer immunity from death penalty and trial of all cases in Madhya Pradesh even for crimes committed in Uttar Pradesh, indicates that the question of the punishment to be imposed on the petitioner in each case depends on the final outcome at the trial, and the imprisonment of eight years mentioned in one of these terms does not conclude the prosecutions. The petitioners contention that the violation of her right to speedy trial is proved by these facts alone to justify quashing of all the prosecutions is, therefore, untenable. The only question now is of the relief pertaining to petitioner's release from custody at this juncture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . .. . . . . . no authority has been shown to justify continuance of her custody on account of the commission of any crime in Madhya Pradesh or any judgment of any court in Madhya Pradesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . In short, no authority has been shown either by the State of Madhya Pradesh or by the State of Uttar Pradesh to justify further custody of the petitioner at this juncture. This is, however, subject to the requirement of any order made hereafter by any competent court in any of the pending prosecutions against the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be released at present, unless by any order made hereafter by any competent court she is required to be taken in custody. The petitioner is entitled to the grant of relief only to this extent in this writ petition. (Emphasis provided) We direct that the petitioner, who is on parole by virtue of order dated 28/02/1994 made in this case, shall continue to remain free, subject to the requirement of taking her in custody by virtue of any order made by a competent courts authority in any of the prosecutions pending in the State of Uttar Pradesh or any other case. The prayer in the writ petition for quashing the prosecutions pending in the State of Uttar Pradesh is rejected." (Emphasis provided) This order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27-11-96 in the aforesaid case. It means that the period of parole has been extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But that parole shall be valid only till the date when any other competent court passes an order for taking her into custody. Meaning thereby that the parole shall be ignored by any subsequent order passed by any criminal court in India.;