Mere Delay Without Prosecutorial Inaction and Beneficiary Conduct Fails to Justify Quashing Case on Right to Speedy Trial

The Petitioner, a government official, was impleaded in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 39 of 2001 following allegations that rice intended for the "Food for Work Programme" was being illegally diverted

An F.I.R. was registered in 2001, and a charge-sheet was filed on 27.09.2002 under Sections 406 and 120-B of the IPC

Although cognizance was taken in 2004, charges were only framed on 07.09.2013

The Petitioner sought quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS), contending that the 25-year delay violated his right to a speedy trial, caused him professional prejudice, and resulted in the withholding of his retiral benefits following his superannuation on 30.04.2024

1. Whether the prolonged pendency of the criminal proceeding for over two decades constitutes a violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, warranting quashment of the proceedings

2. Whether the delay in the trial was predominantly attributable to prosecutorial negligence or to external factors including judicial stay orders and the conduct of the accused

The court applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023), which preserves the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of law

The Court relied on the Constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21, as interpreted in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, which held that while the right is fundamental, no fixed time limit can be prescribed as delay must be assessed relative to the nature of the case and conduct of the parties

The court further referenced Niranjan Hermchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra and CBI v. Ravishankar Prasad, establishing that inherent powers should not be used to stifle trials at advanced stages, especially where delay is not solely the prosecution's fault

The Court observed that the 25-year delay was not exclusively attributable to the prosecution

A significant portion of the stagnation (2004–2018) was due to a judicial stay order obtained by a co-accused, a benefit which the Petitioner passively enjoyed without seeking a separate trial

The Court noted that the trial was not "stagnant" as 11 out of 21 witnesses had been examined, and recent efforts had secured the attendance of P.W. 11

Furthermore, the record indicated that the accused persons had contributed to the delay by remaining absent on several hearing dates

The Court reasoned that since the evidentiary process was active and the delay resulted from a combination of judicial intervention, systemic issues, and the conduct of the accused, the high threshold for quashing a decades-old vigilance case was not met

The CRLMC was dismissed, the interim order was vacated, and the trial court was directed to carry the proceeding to its logical conclusion