Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C.No. 2196/2013 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: January 19, 2015
Date of Decision: January 19, 2015
CRL.M.C. 2196/2013
M P SINGH SAHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta & Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocates
M P SINGH SAHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta & Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Sandeep
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Sandeep
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
CRL.M.C. 4822/2014 & Crl. M.A.No.8504/2013 (for stay)
Quashing of FIR No.308/2005, under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the IPC, registered at police station Tilak Marg, New Delhi is sought in this petition on merits.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that investigation in this case is complete and charge sheet will be filed within four weeks. On behalf of respondent-State it is submitted 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 &
2015:DHC:530 Crl.M.C.No. 2196/2013 Page 2 Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, are as under: -
"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.
Crl. M.A.No.16100/2013 (u/S 340 of the Cr.P.C.)
No case for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is made out.
Application is dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 19, 2015 r 2015:DHC:530
Quashing of FIR No.308/2005, under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the IPC, registered at police station Tilak Marg, New Delhi is sought in this petition on merits.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that investigation in this case is complete and charge sheet will be filed within four weeks. On behalf of respondent-State it is submitted 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 &
2015:DHC:530 Crl.M.C.No. 2196/2013 Page 2 Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, are as under: -
"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.
Crl. M.A.No.16100/2013 (u/S 340 of the Cr.P.C.)
No case for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is made out.
Application is dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 19, 2015 r 2015:DHC:530