- (1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akhilesh Singh and Sri Manoj Kumar, who have filed their appearance slip on behalf of respondent No. 2 Sardar Singh and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 13-5-1997 dismissing the criminal revision against the order dated 16-4-1996. It may be mentioned that the interim order was granted staying proceedings on 14-5- 1998 even though the said order was not filed with the writ petition. However a certified copy whereof has been produced today. The certified copy shows that on 16-4-1996 after hearing learned Counsel for the applicant, the Court had observed that charge-sheet had been received against the petitioner Manoj alias Mannu as an absconding accused on 5-9-1995, which has been registered as case No. 1863 of 1995. It was further observed that the subsequent investigation and report under Section 169 Cr. P. C. was without permission of the Court, hence, the accused was still wanted in the case under Sections 302 and 120-B, IPC, P. S. Jahangirpur, District Bulandshahr and the application was rejected. The criminal revision preferred against the said order was also rejected and the contention of the applicant that further permission of the Court was not necessary for further investigating the matter under Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C did not find favour with the Court. However, even without going into this question whether the Court's permission is required for further investigation by the police under Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C we think the writ petition needs to be rejected on another ground. It is well settled in the cases of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1985 SC 1285; Union of India v. S. Papiah, AIR 1987 SC 3876 et al that no order of final report can be accepted unless notice is issued to the informant. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the complainant. Hence there was no question of the final report being accepted or the proceedings being quashed on subsequent report under Section 169, Cr. P. C consequent to the subsequent investigation under Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C. It is unfortunate that the proceedings in this case have remained stayed since 14-5-1998 for a period of 9 years on the ground that the police in their report had submitted that the petitioner Manoj alias Mannu was at Jabalpur, where he was undergoing training in the military. This in my view is no ground for quashing or, staying an, order of cognizance based on a previous charge-sheet. An opportunity for adducing defence evidence of the petitioner's alleged alibi shall be available to him at the appropriate stage in the trial. Therefore, there is no force in this writ petition. It is dismissed. As the proceedings have remained stayed for such a long time, the Court below is directed to conclude the trial proceedings very expeditiously and if possible within four months. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Court below within one week. This case reveals an alarming state of fact that trials in 302, IPC cases have remained stayed for as long as 9 years on untenable grounds. I am aware that there are a large number of such cases, which are still pending in the High Court. Although an effort was made and special single Benches consisting of Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza and myself were constituted to dispose of such matters. We even disposed of a very large number of such cases during that period. But as this case shows that some of said cases were not listed before the single Judge Benches which had been constituted for disposal of the matters, where proceedings under Section 302, IPC had been stayed by means of applications under Section 482, Cr. P. C, Transfer Applications, Criminal Revisions and Criminal Writs because for one reason or the other the office was unable to place all the relevant cases before either of the two Benches, where the matters were being heard. I, therefore, direct the registry to issue a circular letter to all the District Judges in the 70 districts of U. P. calling for a report as to whether any cases in their districts under Sections 302, 396, 364-A, 304-B, 304 and 376, IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act are not proceeding before the Trial Court because of stay orders from the High Court or any other superior Court and to furnish a list of such cases. The list should also mention the date when the said offences were committed and the dates when the proceedings in the said cases were stayed by the superior Court.
(3.) LEARNED A. G. A. and the Registrar shall also provide a list of all such cases from the High Court State records and from the registry. The Registrar shall take expeditious steps for getting the said circular letter sent to the District Judges. List this case for further orders alongwith the report of the Registry after two months on 24-9-2007.;