‘Tarikh pe tarikh’ can’t define justice system: Court slams 25-year delay in kidnapping trial

The FIR was lodged on December 30, 2001, by a man who alleged that his 15-year-old daughter had gone missing from their house on December 12, 2001. During the search, two villagers allegedly informed him that the accused had persuaded and taken the girl away.

It was alleged that the accused abducted the girl with the intention of marrying her and that she had also taken gold and silver ornaments and Rs 1,000 in cash while leaving home. After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet in April 2002 registered under sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366 (abduction for marriage) of the IPC.

Feeling aggrieved by the summons issued by a magistrate’s court, the accused persons moved the high court seeking to quash the proceedings. During the pendency of the plea, interim protection was granted to the applicants. However, when the matter was subsequently listed, no one appeared on behalf of the accused and the high court dismissed the application.

Justice Rajeev Bharti observed that for years, the proceedings in the case remained dormant without any meaningful progress.

After this, no effective proceedings took place for a considerable period. Later, the trial court resumed the proceedings and issued bailable warrants against the accused.

The accused submitted that the case arose out of a consensual relationship and that the girl had voluntarily accompanied the first applicant. They told the court that they later married, had reconciled with their families and had been living together peacefully as husband and wife for years. The state opposed the plea but did not dispute the facts.

Case pending for 2 decades: HC

Expressing serious concern, the court observed that a criminal case registered in 2001 had remained pending for more than two decades without reaching its logical conclusion. Such an extraordinary delay is wholly incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of a fair and speedy trial under Article 21.

“The record reveals a rather disquieting state of affairs. For years together, the…proceedings remained dormant without any meaningful progress, reducing the criminal trial to a mere formality,” the order read.

Taking into account the applicants’ lack of criminal antecedents, the filing of the chargesheet, and their undertaking to cooperate with the trial, the high court granted them protection. It directed the applicants to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. It ordered that upon surrender, they shall be released on anticipatory bail.