M. B. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS is a miscellaneous petition by the accused-petitioner seeking to quash the chaege framed by the learned Magistrate under his order dated 25. 1. 1989. It has arisen in the following circumstances.
(2.) ONE S. R. drag lodged a report on 11. 1. 1982 at police station Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, that his cycle, bearing frame No. 6 M-744329 has been stolen. On 7. 1. 1982 at about 2. 30 p. m. the cycle was left by him in the compound of his houce and at about 8 p. m. he noticed that the cycle was not traceable. He could not produce the receipt as it was not available with him. A case was registered and investigation was set in motion. It appears that on 31. 3. 1982 the complainant saw his cycle with a person. On that date the complainant took the SHO Arjunlal Sharma, ASI alongwith him to Janta Colony shopping centre near the shop of one Santosh Kumar and pointed out to the cycle which was being taken by a person. The A. S. I. saw that the description of the cycle as mentioned in the report tallied with the cycle and it was in fact the accused petitioner was arrested. The seat of the cycle and other articles were also recovered at the instance of the accused-petitioner and thereafter a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-petitioner under Sec. 379 IPC. A charge was framed against the accused petitioner by the learned Magistrate and 1 may say that the learned Magistrate was completely ignorant in framing the charge. The charge was framed to the effect that on 19. 1. 1982 a cycle-rikshaw was stolen in Adarsh Nagar. The trial proceeded statement of the petitioner was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. and when the Presiding Officer was to write the judgment, he noticed that the charge was wrongly framed and the place, date and even the subject of theft were wrongly mentioned. The Public Prosecutor moved an application for amending the charge and the learned Magistrate under his order dated 25. 1. 1989 allowed the application and amended the charges. Thus, the earlier charge was not correct and now the charge which has been framed is a correct charge. The question arises whether fin a case of petty nature of theft where a cycle is said to have been stolen, the trial was dragged on for about 8 years on a wrong charge, whether the learned Magistrate had the jurisdiction to amend the charge and the charge should have been amended. It is well settled that when in a criminal case the accused has to attend the court and thus he has to deprive himself for the work on the date when he attends the court and besides this he has to incur expenses and has to suffer mental agony. Even in the cases of serious nature, if the trial does not conclude in 7 years, the trial should be quashed. In my opinion when the accused was charge-sheeted in 1982, he facted the long trial on a wrong charge, suffered mental agony, there was no valid reason for the learned Magistrate to amened or modify the charge. Consequently, I allow the Misc. Petition and quash the order dated 25. 1. 1989 of the learned Magistrate as well as the charge dated 15. 5. 89. I am of the opinion that the charge was framed by the learned Magistrate against the record and the accused cannot be convicted and therefore it will be a futile exercise if the learned Magistrate is asked to proceed with the trial of the case on the charge framed. I, therefore, quash the entire proceedings. Before parking with this case, I would like to call for the explanation of Shri Moti Singh Rathore, who was Judicial Magistrate No. 12 Jaipur City on 18. 2. 1983. Prima facie it appears that he did not apply his mind and did not go through the record of the case while framing the charge and the charge is not in consonance with the FIR and evidence collected during investigation. His explanation should reach this court within 4 weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order by him. .;