APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1.
2.
against
the
appellants,
and
Crime
Case
However, an
though
respondent
No.2
had
registered
Crime
Case
2
Page2
action
was
taken
thereon,
he
Meanwhile, respondent
year
1995.
It
was
only
on
11th
August,
2005
3
Page3
of
the
appellants
vide
order
dated
3rd June, 2009 which was impugned before the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellants
for quashing on the ground that allegation in the complaint
and preliminary evidence led in support thereof made out a
case for summoning and thus no case for quashing was
made out.
6.
It is thus
4
Page4
9.
We
have
submissions.
given
due
consideration
to
the
rival
5
Page5
In this regard,
13.
observed :
18. Time and again this Court has
emphasised
the
need
for
speedy
investigations and trial as both are mandated
by the letter and spirit of the provisions of
CrPC [in particular, Sections 197, 173, 309,
437(6) and 468, etc.] and the constitutional
protection enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution. Inspired by the broad sweep
and content of Article 21 as interpreted by a
seven-Judge Bench of this Court in Maneka
2 (2009) 3 SCC 355
6
Page6
(P.
14.
9
Page9
15.
16.
10
Page10
17.
certainly
be
taken
into
account.
Admittedly,
the
At least for
1995 itself
11
Page11
...J.
[ J. CHELAMESWAR ]
.......J.
[ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
NEW DELHI
JULY 6, 2015
12
Page12