1976 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Appellant. Usanan Ghani Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 (absent). Date of hearing : 4th May 1976. The applicant alongwith four others was sent up vide Crime No. 75 of 1970 in the Court of A. C. M. and Civil Judge, Hyderabad, for trial on the charge of abducting one 41st. Bakhrahan. The Police arrested the applicant and respondent No. 3 in this connection whereas respondent No. 2 succeeded in obtaining bail before arrest. However, it is alleged that the abductee appeared in the Court only upto 16th February, 1971 when she was bound down by the Court to appear on future dates but since then her whereabouts were not known. The case has been heard upto the date of the admission of this application 83 times but no progress worth the name has been made. It has therefore been prayed by the applicant that the proceedings which are now pending in the Court of 11ad Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad may be quashed.

2. He has mainly contended that the other co‑accused namely Zareen and Yaqoob are still absconding and for want of an order under section 512, Cr. P. C. the case was lingering on for quite sometime. The whereabouts of the prosecutrix are not known and therefore there is no possibility that any offence may be established against the applicant. He has further argued that on the same charge the applicant had been arrested by the Mobile Summary Military Court, Hyderabad and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000 besides 15 lashes. He has thus already undergone the punishment. According to him if the proceedings are allowed to continue it would amount to abuse of process of law and no useful purpose would be served. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant at length and have reached the conclusion that the case has been lingering on for the last six years without any progress and as such it cannot be expected that it will be concluded in near future. The conviction of the applicant is also out of question because the whereabouts of the prosecutrix who is the main witness in the case are not known. Two other co‑accused namely Zareen and Yakoob are absconding and the Police has not been able to arrest them so far. The main policy of the law is to expedite the criminal proceedings as early as possible. It amounts to defeat the ends of justice to prolong the matter for as long as six years i.e. the time that has passed in this case. If the matter is allowed to proceed it will take another couple of years which would be too harsh upon the applicant. In these circumstances I consider it a fit case for the quashment of proceedings pending against the applicant in the lower Court.

3. For the foregoing reasons I allow this application and quash the proceedings pending against the applicant in exercise of my powers vested by virtue of section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. Petition allowed.