Patna High Court
Jiwendra Kishore Prasad Rukhaiyar @ J. … vs The State Of Bihar on 22 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61795 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-1997 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Jiwendra Kishore Prasad Rukhaiyar @ J. K. P. Rukhaiyar Son of Late
Chandra Kishore Prasad Resident of Village - Rasalpura, P.S. - Narhat,
District- Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Binod Murari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 22-08-2025
Heard Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Binod Murari, the learned counsel for the
Informant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing of F.I.R.
of Special Case No. 19 of 1997, dated 09.06.1997 for the offences
punishable under Sections 109, 120(B), 201, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471,
477A and 465 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending
in the Court of learned Special Judge, Special Vigilance-I, Patna.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is to the effect that
the Informant, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance has stated
that on a preliminary investigation conducted by the Cabinet Vigilance
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61795 of 2024 dt.22-08-2025
2/12
Department, certain facts had come into light for the financial year 1991-
92 to 1994-95 in Main Budget Head-2013 and other Heads against the
amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- (Three lakhs twenty five thousand) allotted by
the Finance Department, total withdrawal of Rs. 57,54,000/- ( Fifty
seven lakhs fifty four thousand) was done and therefore an excess
amount of Rs. 54,29, 000/- (Fifty four lakhs twenty nine thousand) was
withdrawn during the aforesaid period. The informant has further alleged
that likewise for the subsequent years also certain withdrawals were
made which was also in excess of the allotted amount and certain
withdrawals were made against the Bills, however, there was no entry in
the contingency register regarding those Bills clearly indicating that the
amount was withdrawn in an illegal manner. In the nutshell, it was
alleged that the officials and employees of Finance Department,
Revenue and Land Reforms Department and Secretariat Treasury have
hatched a preplanned conspiracy creating erroneous records for the
period 1991-92 to 1995-96 causing a loss of Rs. 54,29,000/- (Fifty four
lakhs twenty nine thousand) to the Government of Bihar illegally and
enriched themselves financially and have also concealed evidence and
the names of the concerned officials involved were also stated.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from
bare perusal of the prosecution report, it appears that the petitioner was
not named in the F.I.R. and he has been named as an accused in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61795 of 2024 dt.22-08-2025
3/12
present case merely on suspicion. The learned counsel next submits that
the FIR was lodged on 09.06.1997 for alleged occurrence from the year
1991-92 to 1994-95 i.e., after an inordinate delay of more than two years
without any reason for the same.
5. The learned counsel further submits that the charge-sheet
was then submitted on 25.09.204 for the offences alleged under Section
109, 120-B, 201, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (c)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused persons including the
petitioners.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that after
submission of the charge-sheet, the Court took cognizance against the
petitioner vide order dated 04.10.2004. It is also submitted that the
petitioner filed a petition under Section 207 Cr.P.C. read with Section
238 of Cr.P.C. praying for supply of legible copy of documents detailed
in column no. 10 of the charge-sheet which has not been supplied to the
petitioner and on such application, the learned Court below vide order
dated 19.12.2016 directed the prosecution to supply the documents
detailed in the charge-sheet with sanction order. The learned counsel
submits that despite numerous orders being passed for compliance of the
order dated 19.12.2016, even after lapse of about 8 years, the aforesaid
order was not complied by the prosecution and not a single page from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61795 of 2024 dt.22-08-2025
4/12
the documents detailed in column 10 of the charge-sheet was provided to
the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the
attention of this Court towards order dated 02.08.2024 which has been
annexed as Annexure -P/2, which is the last order passed by the learned
Court below, which would go on to show that the supply of police papers
to the accused persons was still awaited and such action of the
prosecution goes on to show that the prosecution is not interested in the
conclusion of this case and has disregarded numerous orders of the
learned Court below calling for interference of this Hon’ble Court.
8. The learned counsel submits that the provisions of Section
207 of the Cr.P.C. relates to ‘supply to the accused a copy of police
report and other documents’, has been enacted not only to ensure that
an accused has an inalienable right to defend himself, but also to fulfill
the larger purpose of ensuring that a judicial process is in place to ensure
a fair trial and transparency by providing all materials to be supplied
upon by the prosecution during the trial to the accused.
9. The learned counsel at this juncture refers to a judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Manoj & Ors. Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 677
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court highlighted the dual role played by
the public prosecutor and the Court in safeguarding the accused’s right
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61795 of 2024 dt.22-08-2025
5/12
to a fair investigation and trial, by scrutinizing the materials as well as
ensuring fair disclosure.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
few judgments in line of the fundamental right of right to life and
personal liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner are:-
(i) Hussainara Khatoon Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar
& Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 1369/ 1979 SCR (3) 532.
(ii) Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak reported in
(1992) 1 SCC 225.
(iii) Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported
in (2015) 9 SCC 795.
(iv) Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1987
SC 149.
(v) Madheshwardhari Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in
AIR 1986 Pat 324.
(vi) Sirajul Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 9
SCC 201.
(vii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the
aforesaid judgments has stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61795 of 2024 dt.22-08-2025
6/12
observation in all the above cases was in respect to the speedy trial
flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution being implicit in the right of
life and personal liberty. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the need for speedy investigation as per the aforesaid judgments was
in tune to the constitutional protection enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution and its application in the present case where the
constitutional and statutory right of the petitioner has been violated by
keeping the case pending for the last 27 years is mandated.
12. The learned counsel has thus submitted that the right to
speedy trial has been infringed by an inordinate delay of 27 years that
occurred in starting the trial, the lethargic manner of investigation and
till date, the case being pending for supply of police paper adds to the
mental stress and pressure upon the accused on whose head the sword of
criminal case has been hanging. The learned counsel has stated that the
precarious condition of the petitioner can be understood from the fact
that the case has been kept pending for over two decades and the delay
in conclusion of investigation is solely due to apathy of the successive
investigating officers and their supervising authorities who have
miserably failed to discharge their statutory duty. The learned counsel
for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner had been co-
operating all along during the investigation and had been diligently
attending the proceedings of the Court below for the last 27 years and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61795 of 2024 dt.22-08-2025
7/12
has now reached an age of 90 years with numerous old age related
physical ailments.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner in nutshell submits that
the present case is a fit case where the application of the directions as
contained in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 for invoking the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and thereby quashing the entire criminal proceeding.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Cabinet Vigilance Department submits that during the course of
investigation, materials which were collected pointed out towards the
criminal conspiracy of the petitioner with other public servants of the
Revenue and Land Reform Department and the Secretariat Treasury was
found and as such after a thorough inquiry charge-sheet was submitted
against the petitioner, who has been found to be involved in the
fraudulent withdrawals from the Department. The learned counsel for
the Vigilance has further submitted that the petitioner was found to be
involved in a conspiracy to make fake purchasers of articles mentioned
in the buff sheets during the financial year 1991-92 in violation of
financial rules and therefore his name was included in the list of accused
persons in the charge-sheet and there was enough evidence to show his
complicity in the crime. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the
present case involves financial misappropriation and defalcation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61795 of 2024 dt.22-08-2025
8/12
Government money committed by several public servants posted in
various Departments of Bihar Government by abusing their official
possession. As this matter required collection of large number of
documents, scrutiny and classification of the same as well as recording
of statements of witnesses in order to establish their complicity in the
commission of the crime, identification and verification of the accused
persons as such a considerable time was taken but that was completely
procedural and due to the complexity and the involvement of multiple
accused persons and various Departments of the Government of Bihar.
15. The learned counsel further submits that the accused
persons including the petitioner were directed to appear for receiving the
police papers on 02.04.2016 and the petitioner had received the police
papers on 29.08.2016 and thereafter filed the application under Section
207 of the Cr.P.C. contending that documents mentioned in column 10 of
the charge-sheet had not been provided to him and requested that the
same be provided.
16. The learned counsel has pointed out that the document
which was being demanded by the accused petitioner as referred to in
Column 10 of the charge-sheet was not handed over by the then
Malkhana In-charge and for which an F.I.R. was lodged against him
under Vigilance Police Station Case No. 27 of 2014 for offences under
Section 120B, 409, 406, 201, 420 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61795 of 2024 dt.22-08-2025
9/12
Section 13(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned
counsel thus submits that the aforementioned facts established that the
documents mentioned in Column 10 of the charge-sheet relevant to the
present case are not currently available in the Vigilance Malkhans and
therefore, the same was not handed over. It has lastly been submitted by
the learned counsel for the Vigilance that for the aforesaid reasons, there
was a delay in the proceeding of the trial and the benefit of the same
should not be given to the petitioner as it was a procedural lapse on
account of which the delay had occurred and as such, the present
application for quashing the F.I.R. of Special Case No. 19 of 1997 is
misconceived and fit to be dismissed.
17. This Court has heard the parties and has also perused the
materials available on record and it is observed that the case was of the
year 1997 and after a lapse of more than 7 years the charge-sheet was
submitted in the year 2004 and the cognizance was taken in the year
2004. It is also observed that there is no explanation for the delay caused
between 2004 to 2016 in supply of police papers to the accused persons
and there is no opposition made from the prosecution side that it was on
account of the petitioner that the delay had occurred. It must be noted at
this point that it is a specific averment on behalf of the petitioner has
been continuously appearing before the Court below and the application
demanding the documents as stated in column 10 of the charge-sheet
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61795 of 2024 dt.22-08-2025
10/12
was made way back in the year 2016 and thereafter till 2024 the case
was kept pending without any development with regard to the trial of the
case.
18. This Court has been sensitized about the prevailing
condition of the petitioner who has attained an age of 90 years with
several old age related problems and relegating him now to the rigors of
trial at this age would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It is
further observed that the FIR was of the year 1997 and more than 27
years has already lapsed and this Court does not find any possibility of
completion of trial in near future. This Court is aware of the fact that
there are altogether 39 accused persons including the petitioner against
whom the learned Court below has taken cognizance.
19. As referred to by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner to the various judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it is clear that the law is settled with regard to speedy
trial and the conduction of a fair and speedy investigation is a part of
fundamental right, i.e., right to life, guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. At this juncture, this Court is constrained to note
down the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in A.R.
Antulay‘s case (supra)- “Right to speedy trial flowing from article 21
encompasses all the stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry,
trial, appeal, revision and re-trial”.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61795 of 2024 dt.22-08-2025
11/12
20. Guidelines enumerated in A.R. Antulay‘s case especially
guideline Nos. 8, 9 & 10 are relevant which are reproduced hereunder.
“(8) Ultimately, the court has to
balance and weigh the several relevant factors
‘balancing test’ or ‘balancing process’ and
determine in each case whether the right to
speedy trial has been denied in a given case.
(9) Ordinarily speaking, where the
court comes to the conclusion that right to
speedy trial of an accused has been infringed
the charges or the conviction, as the case may
be, shall be quashed. But this is not the only
course open. The nature of the offence and
other circumstances in a given case may be
such that quashing of proceedings may not be
in the interest of justice. In such a case, it is
open to the court to make such other
appropriate order including an order to
conclude the trial within a fixed time where the
trial is not concluded or reducing the sentence
where the trial has concluded as may be
deemed just and equitable in the circumstances
of the case.
(I0) It is neither advisable nor
practicable to fix any time-limit for trial of
offences. Any such rule is bound to be qualified
one. Such rule cannot also be evolved merely to
shift the burden of proving justification on to
the shoulders of the prosecution. In every case
of complaint of denial of right to speedy trial, it
is primarily for the prosecution to justify and
explain the delay. At the same time, it is the
duty of the court to weigh all the circumstances
of a given case before pronouncing upon the
complaint. The Supreme Court of USA too has
repeatedly refused to fix any such outer time-
limit in spite of the Sixth Amendment. Nor do
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61795 of 2024 dt.22-08-2025
12/12
we think that not fixing any such outer limit
ineffectuates the guarantee of right to speedy
trial.”
21. Considering the aforesaid factual as well as the Principles
of law, the continuation of the present proceeding as far as the petitioner
is concerned would amount to abuse of process of law as he has been
made to suffer on account of pendency of a criminal proceeding since
1997 till date and he has reached the age of 90 years now, with no
possibility of the trial to be completed in near future.
22. In view of the above, the F.I.R. of Special Case No. 19 of
1997, dated 09.06.1997, as well as the entire criminal proceedings qua
the petitioner, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Special
Vigilance-I, Patna, is hereby quashed.
23. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Siwani/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 08.08.2025 Uploading Date 22.08.2025 Transmission Date 22.08.2025