Punjab and Haryana HC quashes 49-year-old FIR against septuagenarian due to unavailability of records

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 31

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered way back in 1975 against a now 78-year-old man after nearly five decades of proceedings. The court’s decision was driven by the unavailability of crucial records and the prolonged pendency of the case. The trial was adjourned in 1977, awaiting case file.

“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,” Justice Anoop Chitkara asserted.

The court observed the matter after 1977 was not called again, and FIR was not closed, “its fate awaiting the file from the Sessions Judge, which did not come.” The Bench noted that the case, originating from an FIR registered on April 12, 1975, at Khanna police station in Ludhiana under Sections 353, 386, 342, 506 and 34 of the IPC, had not progressed due to the non-availability of records and a stalled investigation.

The petitioner’s grievance was that the trial against him was adjourned sine die but not finally closed. It did not result in discharge or acquittal and it appeared “there would be no chance of it in his lifetime”

Feeling embarrassed “about being badly outpaced by the sloth”, the petitioner got fed up and came up before this court, Justice Chitkara asserted. The Bench added the petitioner, deeply frustrated by the deadlock, wanted the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to close the pending proceedings before the FIR’s golden jubilee.

The court observed the initial delay “probably ended all hopes of petitioner, and the failure to decide in a reasonable time indeed extinguished all the hopes for justice reminding us the adage ‘justice delayed is justice denied’”.

Going into the background of the matter, the Bench observed that the FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint by a bailiff of the Samrala Sub-Judge. He had alleged an assault while executing a warrant of possession. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the trial had been pending since 1975, not due to the petitioner’s fault but due to the trial court’s decision to summon an additional accused, whose summoning order was stayed by the Ludhiana Additional Sessions Judge.

The court found that the record’s unavailability was a significant factor in the prolonged delay, with the records allegedly damaged or lost over time. Justice Chitkara quoted a 2008 order stating: “During the rainy season due to leakage of the roof, more than 80 per cent of old record have been spoiled in the year 2003 as per the direction of the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana... File has been damaged in the old judicial record room.”

The Bench asserted heaps of paper files were a source of food for insects and housing for fungi. “It would be unusual if the paper is not destroyed by molds, eaten by termites, mixed with others, misplaced, stolen, spoilt in floods, or reduced to ashes. However, now the technology has found a solution in digitisation of the documents and depriving the insects and fungi of their food,” Justice Chitkara asserted.