Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C.No.1313/2015 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: April 06, 2015
Date of Decision: April 06, 2015
CRL.M.C. 1313/2015 & Crl.
M.A.No.4808/2015
NAVEEN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Medhanshu Tripathi, Advocate
M.A.No.4808/2015
NAVEEN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Medhanshu Tripathi, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Bhagwati Prasad
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Bhagwati Prasad
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 448/2013, under Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the IPC, registered at police station Nangloi, Delhi is sought in this petition on merits.
Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that investigation is at the advance stage and charge-sheet in this case would be filed within four weeks and that petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of charge.
On this aspect, pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Padal
Venkata Rama Reddy Alias Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy &
Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, are as under: - 2015:DHC:3074
Crl.M.C.No.1313/2015 Page 2 "13. 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 dictum of above-cited decision of Apex Court to the facts of this case, this Court finds that since petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy available, therefore, this petition and application are disposed of with liberty to petitioner to raise the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of charge.
Needless to say that this Court has not considered the case of the parties on merits and it is left open for the trial court to do so.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 06, 2015 r 2015:DHC:3074
Quashing of FIR No. 448/2013, under Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the IPC, registered at police station Nangloi, Delhi is sought in this petition on merits.
Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that investigation is at the advance stage and charge-sheet in this case would be filed within four weeks and that petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of charge.
On this aspect, pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Padal
Venkata Rama Reddy Alias Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy &
Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, are as under: - 2015:DHC:3074
Crl.M.C.No.1313/2015 Page 2 "13. 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 dictum of above-cited decision of Apex Court to the facts of this case, this Court finds that since petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy available, therefore, this petition and application are disposed of with liberty to petitioner to raise the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of charge.
Needless to say that this Court has not considered the case of the parties on merits and it is left open for the trial court to do so.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 06, 2015 r 2015:DHC:3074