28.09.2026 Sl. No.27 Ct. No.237 AKG CRR 3597 of 2026 Aparesh Dey -vs- The State of West Bengal Mr. Prasenjit Debnath, Ms. Punam Basu, Mr. Amritansu Sengupta …for the petitioner Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu Mr. Subir Ganguly, Mr. Sandeep Prasad Shaw …for the State Ordinarily, delay by itself may not constitute a sufficient ground for quashing a criminal proceeding. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, this Court finds no other course but to allow the prayer of the petitioner on the ground of inordinate delay alone. It appears that a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner along with nineteen other accused persons. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on January 20, 2001. The trial, however, could not commence, inter alia, on account of the absence of some of the accused persons. The order-sheets further reveal that the case records remained missing on two occasions: firstly, from August 3, 2005 to August 31, 2005, and thereafter, from January 28, 2008 to December 6, 2024. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceeding by filing CRR 1567 of 2025. By an order dated December 2, 2025, this Court directed the learned Court below to split the case record in respect of the absconding 2 accused persons and thereafter to consider whether the proceeding involved any offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The said order further provided that, if the learned trial Court was of the view that the proceeding involved an offence triable by the Court of Sessions, the case record was to be committed within one month from the date of splitting of the case record in respect of the absconding accused persons. Alternatively, if the learned Magistrate was of the view that the proceeding did not involve any offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he was directed to make every endeavour to dispose of the proceeding, preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing. However, it appears that, notwithstanding the aforesaid order of this Court, there has been no effective progress in the proceeding. Neither has the case record been split, nor has there been any commitment of the case or commencement of the trial before the learned Magistrate. When the matter was last taken up for hearing on June 24, 2026, the petitioner, along with twelve other accused persons, appeared before the learned Magistrate. However, four accused persons continued to remain absconding, while three accused persons had, in the meantime, died. It is submitted before this Court that the petitioner is presently about 60 years of age and is employed under the Central Government. It is further submitted that, owing to the 3 pendency of the criminal proceeding, his retiral dues have been withheld. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments in support of the submission that inordinate delay in conducting a criminal trial may, in appropriate circumstances, warrant quashing of the proceeding: 1. (1992) 1 SCC 225 (Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. Vs. R. S. Nayak & Anr.) 2. 1994 Supp (3) SCC 735 (Santosh De Vs. Archna Guha & Ors.) 3. (2008) 16 SCC 117 (Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 4. (2009) 3 SCC 355 (Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar) 5. 2023 SCC OnLine All 24 (Madan Mohan Saxena Vs. State of U. P. & Ors.) This Court finds substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. As noted hereinbefore, the proceeding has remained pending for more than twenty-six years, and the trial has not yet commenced. Such inordinate delay in the conduct of the criminal proceeding, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, infringes the petitioner's fundamental right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This is particularly so when it is apparent from the record that the petitioner cannot be attributed with the responsibility for the substantial delay that has occurred in the progress of the proceeding. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the proceeding in connection with BGR No. 3943 of 1999 under 4 Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 186, 436, 342, 336, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, CRR 3597 of 2026 stands allowed. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Kausik Chanda, J.)