Patna High Court
SUJEET KUMAR YADAVversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE HOME SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA.
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The FIR dated 2019 is quashed with respect to the petitioner due to inordinate delay and procedural deficiencies.
Summary
The petitioner, Sujeet Kumar Yadav, owner of two trucks, filed an application to quash FIR No. 489 of 2019 registered by Parbatta Police Station for alleged theft and related offences under IPC sections 379, 120(B) and 34. He contended that the trucks were seized without any official seizure list and that the investigation had remained pending since 2019 with no charge sheet filed, amounting to an inordinate delay. Relying on several Supreme Court precedents, he argued that such unexplained delay violated his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the delay, the absence of a seizure record, and the precedents on speedy justice, and concluded that judicial interference was warranted. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR with respect to the petitioner and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the unexplained delay in investigation and filing of charge sheet violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
- Whether the absence of a seizure list and lack of substantive investigation justify quashing the FIR.
- Whether the FIR should be dismissed solely for the petitioner despite the pending investigation.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 34, 379
Subjects
- speedy trial
- Article 21
- quashing FIR
- investigative delay
- IPC theft
- criminal procedure
- jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73420 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-489 Year-2019 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria
======================================================
SUJEET KUMAR YADAV S/O SHRI VIJAY PRASAD YADAV R/O
CHAUDHANDIH PARHO, SAPAHI, P.S- DOMCHANCH, DISTT.-
KODERMA (JHARKHAND).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE HOME SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. BIHAR
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KHAGARIA. BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjit Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Binod Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
2 30-03-2026 Heard learned counsel folr the petitioner and the
State.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
of the F.I.R. bearing Parbatta P.S. Case No. 489 of 2019
registered for the offences punishable under Sections-
379/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is
owner of trucks bearing registration Nos. JH12G-5861 and
JH12G-5295.
4. Allegation is that those trucks were seized but
taking the benefit of dark at night, the driver and the owner fled
away with the trucks. Learned counsel for the petitioners states
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73420 of 2023(2) dt.30-03-2026
2/5
that since 2019, the case is pending for submission of charge
sheet and the investigation has yet not been concluded. Counsel
for the petitioner further submits that there is no seizure list of
trucks, in question and thus, the story of seizure itself is without
any basis. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on number of
occasions has deprecated long duration of the investigation and
quashed the cases on the basis of the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied several
decisions in support of his case which are as follows:
In Santosh De v. Archana Guha, 1994 Supp
(3) SCC 735, in which, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that an unexplained delay of about 8
years between committal and framing of
charges, attributable solely to the prosecution,
amounts to a violation of the accused’s right to
a speedy trial. Such delay, not being systemic
but due to prosecutorial default, infringes
Article 21.
Likewise, in the case of Robert
Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511, has also been
relied upon in which, relying on Sovaran Singh
Prajapati v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated
that investigation and trial must be conducted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73420 of 2023(2) dt.30-03-2026
3/5
with promptitude, and that the right to speedy
trial is a fundamental right under Article 21. It
was emphasized that unreasonable and
unexplained delay may justify quashing of
proceedings, though delay alone is not
conclusive and must be assessed in the totality
of circumstances. The Court further stressed
the duty of courts to seek explanation for delay
and ensure accountability.
In Srinivas Gopal v. Union Territory of
Arunachal Pradesh, (1998) 4 SCC 36, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where
there is an inordinate and unjustified delay
of about 9½ years in a minor offence, such
delay itself violates Article 21, and technical
issues like cognizance or limitation become
secondary. Speedy justice being a sine qua
non of Article 21, proceedings deserve to be
quashed.
In State of A.P. v. P.V. Pavithran, (1990) 2
SCC 340, it was held that prolonged and
lethargic investigation, causing mental
stress and prejudice to the accused,
especially due to inaction of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73420 of 2023(2) dt.30-03-2026
4/5
investigating agency, justifies judicial
intervention, including quashing, to protect
Article 21 rights.
In Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar,
(2009) 3 SCC 355, the Court reaffirmed
that speedy investigation and trial are
integral to fair, just and reasonable
procedure under Article 21, and any
procedure that permits undue delay
cannot be sustained constitutionally.
In Pankaj Kumar v. State of
Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 117, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
right to speedy trial extends even to the
stage of investigation, and in cases of
violation, courts must assess all
circumstances; if infringement is
established, proceedings may be
quashed or appropriate directions,
including time-bound trial, may be
issued.
6. Taking into consideration of the submissions advanced
on behalf of the petitioner as also the laws cited by the
petitioner, this court is of the view that in this case,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73420 of 2023(2) dt.30-03-2026
5/5
interference is required.
7. Accordingly, the F.I.R. being Parbatta P.S. Case
No. 489 of 2019 is hereby quashed with respect of the
petitioner only and the present application is allowed.
(Ansul, J)
A.K.V.//-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.