- (1.) THIS is a petition Under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (In short, the Code) praying that the charge against the petitioners Under Section 430 read with Sections 114 and 189 Indian Penal Code be dropped and the proceedings thereunder be quashed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners are residents of village Nimri, Tahsil Fatehabad, District Hissar. Chaudhary Mani Ram Codara, father of Prithvi Raj petitioner and Pokhar Ram, father of Sat Pal petitioner are stated to be active politicians. F. I. R. No. 10/1969 for the said offences was registered against the petitioners on 31-1-1969 at the instance of Milkha Singh, Sub-Inspector, the then Station House Officer, Police Station Ratia, The main allegation in the F. I. R. against the petitioners was that they irrigated their fields illegally through Outlet No. 9065 and when they were asked not to do so by Milkha Singh, Sub-Inspector, he was threatened by them with dire consequences. It is alleged in the petition that initially, the investigation of this case was conducted by Banarsi Dass, Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer, Fatehabad and then the investigation was entrusted to Ram Chand Inspector, CIA Staff. Later on, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Ambala Range himself investigated the case and found it to be false due to deficiency of evidence and he recommended it for cancellation. The report for cancellation was put up before the Magistrate on 5-2-1975 but the Magistrate did not agree with the police report and ordered them to conduct further investigation in the case. It appears that for years no action was taken against the petitioners and it was only on the application moved by Milkha Singh, a retired Sub-Inspector that the investigation was re-started. The petitioners were arrested by the police but they were subsequently released on bail on 17-8-1979 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad. The challan was presented in the Court on September 4, 1979 and the Judicial Magistrate framed charge against the petitioners Under Section 430 read with Sections 114 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code and 29th May, 1980 was fixed for recording prosecution evidence. It is pleaded in the petition that the prosecution of the petitioners was an abuse of the process of Court as the history of this case reveals that how the political interference caused havoc to the petitioners after about 11 years when it was almost impossible for them to defend their case and that framing of charge against the petitioners after a long lapse of time was only meant to harass and humiliate them.
(3.) MR. H. L. Sibal, learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that there is no credible evidence whatsoever which may connect the petitioners with the crime and that in fact, the investigation conducted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police revealed that the petitioners were innocent and he rather recommended for the cancellation of the case. He has further urged that while it is incumbent on us to see that the guilty do not escape it is even more necessary to see that persons accused of crime are not indefinitely harassed and that they must be given a fair and impartial trial and while every reasonable latitude must be given to those concerned with the detection of crime and entrusted with the administration of justice, limits must be placed on the lengths to which they may go. On the other hand, Mr. Bhasin, learned Counsel for the State, argued that since the charge had been framed against the petitioners, the High Court would not be competent to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the same.;