https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174865 Criminal proceedings under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 could not be quashed solely for delay where the accused had materially contributed to that delay. The offence was treated as serious, and the delay had to be assessed with the procedural history, including the accused's challenges and non-appearance. Because the trial court had proceeded as a warrant case and recorded evidence under Section 244 CrPC, discharge under Section 245 CrPC was available only if no case was made out or the charge was groundless. The High Court's quashing order was unsustainable because it did not apply that statutory test and relied only on pendency. en-us Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174865 Criminal proceedings under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 could not be quashed solely for delay where the accused had materially contributed to that delay. The offence was treated as serious, and the delay had to be assessed with the procedural history, including the accused's challenges and non-appearance. Because the trial court had proceeded as a warrant case and recorded evidence under Section 244 CrPC, discharge under Section 245 CrPC was available only if no case was made out or the charge was groundless. The High Court's quashing order was unsustainable because it did not apply that statutory test and relied only on pendency. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174865