Speedy trial under Article 21 requires a fact-specific balancing test; prolonged delay did not justify quashing the complaint.

The right to speedy trial under Article 21 is not subject to any rigid outer time-limit; courts must apply a fact-specific balancing test drawn from P. Ramachandra Rao and A.R. Antulay, considering the nature of the offence, number of accused and witnesses, responsibility for delay, and systemic constraints. Applied to the pending criminal complaint, the Court noted that the prolonged pre-charge evidence stage was not attributable to the prosecution alone and that the matter involved an economic offence. Quashing was therefore not justified, and the complaint was allowed to continue with directions for expeditious disposal by the trial court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint and further proceedings should be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay and alleged violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The governing principles on speedy trial were taken from the larger-bench decision in P. Ramachandra Rao and the earlier guidelines in A.R. Antulay. The right to speedy trial is not governed by any rigid outer time-limit; the Court must assess each case on its own facts by applying a balancing process, including the nature of the offence, the number of accused and witnesses, responsibility for delay, and systemic constraints such as court workload. On the facts, although the pre-charge evidence had remained pending for a long period, the delay was not attributable to the prosecution alone and the matter involved an economic offence. The Court found that quashing the proceedings at that stage would not be justified.

Conclusion: The request to quash the criminal complaint was rejected, and the complaint was allowed to continue with directions for expeditious disposal by the trial court.

---