Mela Ram vs Mohinder Lal and Others

J.P. Singh, J.—Through the medium of this petition u/s 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings

pending before Additional District Magistrate (Assistant Commissioner Revenue), Jammu.

Sh. Pranav Kohli, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that continuance of proceedings by the learned Additional District Magistrate,

Jammu, beyond the period prescribed u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e., two months from the date of appearance of the parties, is

illegal and that the petitioner has been deprived of his right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as made applicable to the

State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Both these submissions of the learned Counsel are untenable because Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate

any bar still less absolute bar disabling the Magistrate seized of the proceedings, in continuing the proceedings even beyond the period of two

months prescribed under the aforesaid section.

All that is contemplated by Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that proceedings u/s 145 may be completed within a period of

two months provided it is practicable so to do.

The scheme of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate truncation of the proceedings after a period of two

months as urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Article 21 relied upon by Sh. Kohli, too, is not attracted to the proceedings under Chapter

XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for its application is limited to those proceedings only where the life or personal liberty of an individual is

involved.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, can be invoked if procedure prescribed by law is not followed in depriving a person of his life or personal

liberty.

Neither any such case been set up nor attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

No ground is, thus, made out by the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate.

It, however, appears from the records that the order of dropping of proceedings by the learned Magistrate u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, was questioned with success, when this Court vide its judgment dated 22.2.1996 in Criminal Reference No. 1/1996, set aside the

order of Additional District Magistrate, Jammu and directed the Magistrate to dispose of the proceedings after taking into consideration and

critically examining, the affidavits and other evidence of the parties in support of their respective claims regarding their possession in support of the

subject matter of the dispute within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

This Court's order was received by the learned Magistrate on 22.3.1996. It is quite surprising to find that direction of this Court to conclude

proceedings within a span of six months has gone unheeded and no steps worth the name have been taken by the learned Magistrate in concluding

the proceedings within the prescribed period. The note sheet of the file of the learned Magistrate shows that a casual approach has been adopted

by the concerned Magistrate in dealing with the case and adjourning the same from time to time on one or the other pretext. Non appearance of

the parties too has attributed to the delay in disposal of the proceedings.

Long delay in disposal of such type of cases affects seriously the administration of Justice and finally the confidence of people in the

Magistracy.

Immediate directions are, thus, warranted to ensure that no further damage or prejudice is caused to the parties who are entitled to secure

justice at a speedier pace.

I, therefore, deem it just and proper to direct the learned Magistrate to conclude the proceedings by taking up the case on priority and on day

to day basis, so that justice is not only done but appears to have been done to those who seek justice from the Magistracy.

Learned Additional District Magistrate (Assistant Commissioner Revenue), Jammu, is directed to conclude the proceedings before April 30,

2006. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on March 9, 2006. Learned Magistrate is further informed to report

progress of the proceedings to the Registrar Judicial of this Court every fortnight.