HARISH CHANDRA MISHRA, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of the private respondent and on earlier occasion also, no one had appeared on his behalf, in spite of repeated calls.
(2.) THIS writ application has been filed with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C -1 Case No. 482 of 1997 for the alleged offences under Sections 109, 120B, 193, 500, 501B, 502B, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, on the ground of inordinate delay, being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. From perusal of the record, it appears that the complainant is an Advocate, practicing in the Civil Court, Jamshedpur and for a news item, defaming the image of the complainant, which was published in a newspaper "Uditvani", of which the petitioner is said to be the Editor, the said complaint case has been filed. It appears from the record that the complaint case was filed on 30.9.1997 and upon enquiry, prima facie case was found against the petitioner by order dated
(3.) 10.1997 and the processes were issued against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, on 8.11.1997 the petitioner surrendered in the Court below and by orders dated 4.4.1998, the substance of accusation was explained to the petitioner. It appears that one P.W was examined in part on 13.7.1998 and though the petitioner either appeared before the Court or was being represented through the lawyer on all the successive dates till on 31.11.1998, no witness was examined. On 9.12.1998, the petitioner could not appear in the Court and one witness had filed the "Hazri" in the Court, who could not be examined and warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. Subsequently, on 15.12.1998, petitioner surrendered in the Court and thereafter, repeated adjournments were granted till 17.3.2001, but no witness was produced for examination by the complainant. Accordingly, this application was filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner, stating that the protracted delay in the trial is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4 Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that undue delay has been caused in this case, but it appears that this case was admitted on 27.8.2001 and the further proceedings in the Court below were stayed and the records of the case were called for. Accordingly, no progress could be made in the Court below.;