Rajasthan High Court quashes charges against 100-year-old man, 96-year-old wife in corruption case

The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed the charges in a corruption case against a 100-year-old man and his 96-year-old wife after observing that their advanced age and health issues demand a humanitarian approach [Ram Lal Patidar and Others vs State of Rajasthan]..Justice Arun Monga also granted relief to the 65-year-old daughter-in-law of the elderly couple in the case originally registered against their 71-year-old son under Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his income as Development Officer from 1978-2006.The Court took note of a delay of over 18 years in concluding in the trial and observed the same reinforced the argument that charges against the accused may be baseless or at least not supported by strong evidence.“Forcing individuals nearing the end of their lives to endure a prolonged legal battle without any substantive charges against them is both cruel and unjust,” the Court said..Considering the lack of direct involvement of the elderly couple and their daughter-in-law in the case, the Court concluded that a compelling ground was made out for quashing the charges against them.They have already suffered the pangs of protracted litigation without even a flicker of light in the tunnel during twilight years of their lives, the Court said..The Anti-Corruption Bureau in Jaipur had lodged the First Information Report (FIR) against the accused in 2006 and chargesheeted them in 2014. Following a raid, the accounts of main accused Ram Lal Patidar and his parents Dhooli and Panu Devi were seized. Additionally, the stree-dhan belonging to Patidar’s wife Premila and their daughter-in-law was also seized. Land documents were confiscated as well.The accused moved the Court seeking quashing of the case. They argued that no steps have been taken by the prosecution for the past 10 years to proceed with the trial. They attributed the delay to the lack of evidence against them..The Court at the outset noted that the allegations in the chargesheet were primarily against Patidar and his brother. However, the brother of the main accused was not being prosecuted due to lack of prosecution sanction against him.Having read the case filed, the Court opined that the “prolonged and unreasonable delay” of over 18 years was of foremost significance. “This delay, despite no fault on the part of the petitioners, violates their right to a fair and speedy trial. The absence of any progress, despite the charge sheet being filed in 2014, raises serious concerns about the administration of justice. Such delay undermines the legal principle that justice delayed is justice denied. No doubt, conversely, justice hurried is justice buried. But the case in hand is of former category and not latter,” it said..The Court also questioned the seizure of assets of Patidar’s family members including the personal belongings like stree-dhan of his wife.“These actions extend beyond what is necessary for investigating disproportionate assets, causing undue hardship to the entire family. The inclusion of unrelated family members in the investigation adds to the oppressive nature of the case against them,” it remarked.The Court further said that the burden of the trial on individuals of such age who are not central to the allegations, makes out a case of quashing their involvement in the case on compassionate ground..The Court also flagged the inconsistency in the prosecution case inculding the fact that Patidar’s brother was not being prosecuted due to absence of sanction. The inconsistency in the prosecutorial conduct suggests that the case might not be sufficiently robust, it opined.“If a key figure, like the petitioner's brother, is not being prosecuted, it raises doubts about the legitimacy of the case against the rest of the family as well.”Thus, the Court quashed proceedings against the parents and wife of the main accused but allowed the case to go on against the main accused..Advocate Gajendra Singh Rathore represented the petitioner.Public Prosecutor Vikram Rajpuohit represented the Anti-Corruption Bureau..[Read Judgment]