Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 2512/2012 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: February 20, 2015
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: February 20, 2015
CRL.M.C. 2512/2012 & Crl.
M.A. No. 12973/2012
DILIP ROY CHOUDHURY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Bhaduri & Ms. Kirti Parmar, Advocates
M.A. No. 12973/2012
DILIP ROY CHOUDHURY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Bhaduri & Ms. Kirti Parmar, Advocates
VERSUS
SOLUTION INFOTECH INDIA P.LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate
Through: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
In this petition, quashing of complaint Case No. 467/2011, titled as “Solution Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anjali Roy
Choudhury & Anr”, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 and the summoning order of 24th January, 2007 is sought on merits.
At the hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the matter is now pending before the trial court for recording of statement of petitioner-accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C.
However, it was vehemently submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in “Aneeta
Hada Vs. Godfather Travels & Tours”, the continuation of
2015:DHC:1625
In this petition, quashing of complaint Case No. 467/2011, titled as “Solution Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anjali Roy
Choudhury & Anr”, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 and the summoning order of 24th January, 2007 is sought on merits.
At the hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the matter is now pending before the trial court for recording of statement of petitioner-accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C.
However, it was vehemently submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in “Aneeta
Hada Vs. Godfather Travels & Tours”, the continuation of
2015:DHC:1625
CRL.M.C. 2512/2012 Page 2 proceedings arising out of complaint case in question is an abuse of process of the court.
Since the matter is now at the final stage, before the trial court, therefore, this court is not inclined to exercise its inherent extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the complaint or the summoning order. Petitioner is at liberty to raise the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the final hearing.
This, petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty, while not commenting on the merits of the case.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 20, 2015 rs 2015:DHC:1625
Since the matter is now at the final stage, before the trial court, therefore, this court is not inclined to exercise its inherent extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the complaint or the summoning order. Petitioner is at liberty to raise the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the final hearing.
This, petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty, while not commenting on the merits of the case.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 20, 2015 rs 2015:DHC:1625