Inordinate Delay of Thirty Years in Commencing Trial Violates Article 21 and Warrants Quashing of Proceedings

The Petitioner, a Junior Engineer (JE), was implicated in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 05 of 1993 for alleged misappropriation of government subsidies (totaling ₹1.47 lakh) in the installation of Shallow Point Tube Wells

The FIR was registered on 02.02.1993, and the chargesheet against 56 individuals was filed on 30.06.1997

Cognizance was taken in 2001, and the case was transferred to the Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack, in 2007

By 2024, nearly 31 years had elapsed without the trial commencing or charges being framed

During the pendency, 24 of the 56 accused persons passed away

The Petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS (inherent jurisdiction) on the grounds of inordinate delay

1. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings after a delay of over 32 years since the FIR violates the Petitioner's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution

2. Whether the delay in the commencement of the trial is attributable to the accused or the State/Prosecution

3. Whether the gravity of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the subsequent framing of charges during the pendency of this petition bar the quashing of proceedings

The court primarily applied Article 21 of the Constitution, interpreting the right to life and liberty to include the right to a "fair, just, and reasonable" procedure, encompassing a speedy trial

Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) regarding inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process

A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, which established that while no rigid time limit exists, inordinate delay can warrant quassing

Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, affirming that excessive delay compromises trial fairness

Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, where proceedings were quashed due to an eight-year delay attributable to the prosecution

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal regarding the sparing use of quashing powers

The Court rejected the Vigilance Department’s argument that the delay was solely due to the non-appearance of 56 accused persons. It held that the State’s judicial and prosecutorial machinery bears the primary duty to ensure timely trials through measures like splitting trials or enforcing attendance

The Court observed that 31 years passed before charges were framed (only after the filing of this petition in 2025)

Applying the balancing test from Antulay, the court found that the "cloud of a criminal investigation" hanging over the Petitioner for three decades was oppressive

The evidentiary foundation had "crumbled" because 24 co-accused and several witnesses had died, making a fair trial impossible

The court distinguished the Petitioner's case from co-accused Nanda Kishore Pal (whose case was quashed on lack of sanction) but found them on equal footing regarding the constitutional grievance of delay

The Court allowed the CRLMC application and quashed T.R. Case No. 213 of 2007 insofar as it related to the Petitioner, holding that continuing a trial where the evidentiary landscape had fundamentally changed due to time would be a manifest abuse of process