Delhi High Court: Reiterating the view of the Constitution Bench, as has been held in various similar cases, the Court said that a realistic and practical approach should be made regard being had to all attending circumstances, including the nature of the offences, the number of accused and witnesses etc. before quashing the FIR due to delay in investigation. Each case must be considered on its own facts without being pedantically persuaded merely because delay had occasioned during investigation stage. The Court was of the opinion that the powers of the High Courts under Section 482, Cr.P.C. are very wide and should be exercised in appropriate cases ex debito justitiae in the rarest of rare cases, where the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. In the present case the petitioners contended that the Investigating Officer absented himself from the Court for a period of 6 years without any justification and there were other intervening circumstances, such as file not traceable, Presiding Officer on leave, non-appearance of accused, death of the 3rd accused resulting in the delay in trial of the case, hence FIR is liable to be quashed. Dismissing the petition, the Court held that in the case of non-appearance of Investigating Officer the Court has to come to its conclusion de hors his lapses and that cannot be the ground for quashing FIR and the present case, being at the crucial stage, inasmuch as the arguments have been partly heard & written synopsis being filed by the Investigating Officer, is bereft of merit. [Kamal Gaind v. The Sate & Another, W.P. (CRL) 1379/2013, decided on September 30, 2013]-SCC
Posted on: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:56:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015