In a significant decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed an FIR that had been pending for nearly five decades against Harvinder Kumar, a 78-year-old petitioner, citing the adage “justice delayed is justice denied.” The court underscored the impossibility of continuing with a case where the records had been lost, and many parties had already passed away.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR (No. 160) registered on April 12, 1975, at the Khanna Police Station in District Ludhiana under Sections 353, 386, 342, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR was filed on the complaint of Lajpat Rai, a bailiff of the Sub Judge, Samrala, Punjab, who alleged that he was assaulted and threatened while executing a warrant of possession in the case of Ashok Kumar v. Surinder Kumar and others. The accused in the case included Harvinder Kumar, Amarjit Singh, Harbans Singh, and Varinder Bhandari.
Lajpat Rai claimed that on April 9, 1975, while executing the court’s order at a shop in Khanna, the accused had obstructed him, snatched the warrant of possession, and coerced him into preparing a false memo under threat. Based on these allegations, the FIR was lodged, and an investigation commenced, ultimately leading to a police report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Legal Proceedings and Issues
The trial court took cognizance of the offense and summoned the accused, including Amarjit Singh, who challenged his summoning before the Sessions Court by filing a criminal revision petition. The Additional Sessions Judge at Ludhiana stayed the summoning order on December 8, 1977. Since then, the trial has remained at a standstill due to the lack of a final order on the revision petition and the missing case file.
The petitioner, Harvinder Kumar, has faced a protracted legal battle for nearly 50 years. He argued that the delay was not due to his fault but because the trial court had disagreed with the non-arraignment of Amarjit Singh, leading to further complications. The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Abhay Gupta, contended that the records were unavailable and many of the accused and witnesses had since died, leaving Kumar as the sole surviving party suffering from the agony of the prolonged legal battle.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Anoop Chitkara, while delivering the judgment, highlighted the undue delay and the failure of the judicial process to provide timely justice. He observed, “The file could not travel from Ludhiana to Samrala for 49 years, with an average speed of one-sixth of the adorable sloth’s speed, and the distance of Samrala was roughly 44 km from Ludhiana.” The court noted that the records were not reconstructed despite repeated attempts, and the involved parties had already passed away, making it impossible to proceed further with the case.
The court emphasized the principle that “justice delayed is justice denied” and concluded that there was no justification to continue the FIR, summoning order, or any further proceedings in a case where crucial records were missing, and the accused had suffered significant hardship due to the undue delay.
Quoting from the Judgment
In its judgment, the court lamented, “This Court does not want to shorten the life of the sole surviving party by further continuing the proceedings. Given the above, the same is quashed and set aside.” The court also observed that technology could have prevented such a prolonged delay, stating, “Now the technology has found a solution in digitization of the documents and depriving the insects and fungi of their food.”
Legal Representation and Case Details
The petitioner, Harvinder Kumar, was represented by Advocate Abhay Gupta, while the State of Punjab was represented by Mr. Sukhdev Singh, A.A.G., Ms. Swati Batra, D.A.G., and Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, A.A.G. The case was heard as CRM-M No. 13575 of 2024, reserved on August 1, 2024, and pronounced on August 30, 2024.
