Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 1003/2015 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: September 02, 2015
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: September 02, 2015
CRL.M.C. 1003/2015 & Crl.M.A.11971/2015
POONAM @ MEENU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Rana and Mr. M.
Tripathi, Advocates
POONAM @ MEENU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Rana and Mr. M.
Tripathi, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Bhagwati
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Bhagwati
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.448/2013 under Sections
420/468/471/120-B of IPC registered at P.S. Nangloi, Delhi in this petition.
Vide last order respondent-State was called upon to investigate qua the Notary Register seized in this FIR. A status report has been filed wherein it has been stated that the relevant entry of the Notary Register is being filed with the charge-sheet.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that the charge-sheet would be filed within a period of four weeks.
Let it be so done.
2015:DHC:7240
Petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.448/2013 under Sections
420/468/471/120-B of IPC registered at P.S. Nangloi, Delhi in this petition.
Vide last order respondent-State was called upon to investigate qua the Notary Register seized in this FIR. A status report has been filed wherein it has been stated that the relevant entry of the Notary Register is being filed with the charge-sheet.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that the charge-sheet would be filed within a period of four weeks.
Let it be so done.
2015:DHC:7240
CRL.M.C. 1003/2015 Page 2
Since petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy to seek discharge from trial court by urging the pleas taken herein, therefore, this
Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 of Cr.P.C.. Such a course is being adopted in view of dictum of Apex
Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias Ramu v. Kovvuri
Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, which is as under: -
"It is well settled that the inherent powers under
Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code (vide Kavita v. State and B.S.Joshi v. State of
Haryana). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the
High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specifically when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy."
Applying the afore-noted dictum of the Apex Court in Padal
Venkata Rama Reddy (supra) to facts of the instant case, this petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of charge and if it is so done, then trial court shall deal with the pleas raised herein by passing a speaking and reasoned order.
If the trial court finds that no case is made out against petitioner, then this order will not stand in the way of trial court to discharge petitioner. Needless to say, if trial court chooses to frame charges against petitioner, then petitioner shall be at liberty to avail of the remedy as available in law, if so advised.
This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of while
Since petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy to seek discharge from trial court by urging the pleas taken herein, therefore, this
Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 of Cr.P.C.. Such a course is being adopted in view of dictum of Apex
Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias Ramu v. Kovvuri
Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, which is as under: -
"It is well settled that the inherent powers under
Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code (vide Kavita v. State and B.S.Joshi v. State of
Haryana). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the
High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specifically when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy."
Applying the afore-noted dictum of the Apex Court in Padal
Venkata Rama Reddy (supra) to facts of the instant case, this petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of charge and if it is so done, then trial court shall deal with the pleas raised herein by passing a speaking and reasoned order.
If the trial court finds that no case is made out against petitioner, then this order will not stand in the way of trial court to discharge petitioner. Needless to say, if trial court chooses to frame charges against petitioner, then petitioner shall be at liberty to avail of the remedy as available in law, if so advised.
This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of while
CRL.M.C. 1003/2015 Page 3 refraining to comment upon merits, lest it may prejudice petitioner before trial court. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of this case and it is left open for the trial court to do so after considering the pleas raised by petitioner in this petition.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 02, 2015 s
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 02, 2015 s