In CRL.M.C. 4370/2019-DEL HC- ‘Right to speedy trial is fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution which cannot be denied to accused person’: Delhi HC in matter where accused are facing trial for 32 years
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain [20-12-2023]

Read Order: AMIT BANSAL & ANR v. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, January 2, 2024: Considering the fact that the accused-petitioners had been facing trial for more than 32 years and the dispute had already been settled between the Bank and the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has quashed the proceeding emanating from a case registered under sections 420/468/477A/120B IPC.

The petitioner had approached the Bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain by filing a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of proceedings qua the petitioners.

Briefly stated, the facts of the present case were that the CBI registered the RCs on the basis of complaint made by the Regional Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi as well as the Chief Vigilance Officer, Punjab & Sind Bank, Head Office, New Delhi. After conclusion of the investigation, a common charge-sheet was filed in 1988 wherein 13 persons were implicated including the petitioners and their father namely Satya Pal Bansal (since deceased) who was the holder of Current Account in the name of M/s Sanjay Traders in Punjab & Sind Bank (Bank).

It was stated that the various transactions between the accused firms and persons caused a loss of approximately Rs 32 lakh to the Bank. The allegation against the petitioner no.2/Vikas Bansal was that a sum of Rs 3,10,000 was deposited in his account by his father. The allegation against the petitioner no.1/Amit Bansal was that a sum of Rs 1,50,000 was deposited in his account by his father.

The ACMM  framed charges for the offences against all accused including the petitioners. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed revision petitions which were dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition before this Court seeking quashing of the order on charge. Keeping in view the settlement between the Bank and M/s Sanjay Traders, the High Court had quashed the charges framed against the petitioners.

Being aggrieved, the respondent/CBI filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and consequent Criminal Appeal which was allowed and the order passed by the High Court was set aside. Thereafter, petitioners’ Review Petition (Crl.) & Curative Petition were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

It was the petitioners’ case that the RCs were registered more than 35 years ago and the petitioners had been facing the trial since last more than 32 years which caused great mental agony and harassment to the petitioner and had taken a severe toll on their life and career.

It was submitted that the dispute between the petitioners and the Bank was primarily of a civil nature and the same had been settled between them by way of compromise and the petitioners had paid the entire settled amount of Rs 17  lakhs to the Bank which was duly acknowledged.

Considering the fact that the RCs were registered in the years 1986-87 and petitioners have been facing the trial since last more than 32 years, the Bench said, “The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which cannot be denied to an accused person.”

The Bench highlighted the fact that the dispute subject matter of the present RCs, pertaining to the petitioners, being civil in nature, had already been settled between the Bank and the petitioners and the Bank had received the entire settled amount.

“No useful purpose shall be served if the proceedings arising out of the present RCs are allowed to be continued and it would be an exercise in futility”, the Bench held while allowing the petition and quashing the RCs along with all consequential proceedings.