Kolkata: Quashing a criminal proceeding due to lack of evidence in a case relating to tenancy dispute, Calcutta High Court observed that if prima facie material is found against the accused in a particular case, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay.
The bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh was moved by the petitioner praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings against him after the trial court refused to discharge him.
The alleged incident occurred in June 1998, involving the dispossession of the de-facto complainant from the property in question. An FIR was filed in February 1999, with an unexplained delay of over seven months. The petitioner was accused of being present at the scene when the landlord and others allegedly broke padlocks and removed furniture and articles from the complainant’s possession which were stored in the petitioner’s school. The court noted multiple civil litigations between the complainant and the landlord over tenancy rights but the petitioner was not a party to these disputes. No evidence suggested that the petitioner trespassed into the property (Section 448 IPC), committed theft (Section 379 IPC), or broke open any receptacle (Section 461 IPC).
The court found no material to implicate the petitioner in a criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC), as mere presence or phone calls did not establish participation in the offence. The significant delay (1998 incident, 1999 FIR, 2001 chargesheet, no charges framed by 2024) and the petitioner’s prolonged ordeal was acknowledged by the court.
“It is a fact that delay is a relevant factor and every accused is entitled to speedy justice in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But attending facts and circumstances leading to the delay should also be taken into consideration in deciding the issue. If prima facie material is found against the accused in a particular case, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay,” the court observed.