Full Text
Translation output
Crl. M.C. No.210/2013 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: January 14, 2015
Date of Decision: January 14, 2015
CRL.M.C. 210/2013
SATISH SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Advocate
SATISH SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Advocate
VERSUS
VED PRAKASH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Deepakshi Jain, Advocate
Through: Ms. Deepakshi Jain, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Petitioner is aggrieved by order of 16th March, 2012 vide which his revision petition seeking quashing of order of 15th February, 2011 has been dismissed. Petitioner is the purported mediator of marriage of respondent- Om Prakash with one –Neetu (proforma respondent).
Learned counsel for respondent informs that matter is now coming up before the trial court for hearing on the point of charge.
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
2015:DHC:367 Crl. M.C. No.210/2013 Page 2 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 the instant case, this petition and applications are 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.
With aforesaid observations, this petition and applications are disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 14, 2015 r 2015:DHC:367
Petitioner is aggrieved by order of 16th March, 2012 vide which his revision petition seeking quashing of order of 15th February, 2011 has been dismissed. Petitioner is the purported mediator of marriage of respondent- Om Prakash with one –Neetu (proforma respondent).
Learned counsel for respondent informs that matter is now coming up before the trial court for hearing on the point of charge.
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
2015:DHC:367 Crl. M.C. No.210/2013 Page 2 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 the instant case, this petition and applications are 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.
With aforesaid observations, this petition and applications are disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 14, 2015 r 2015:DHC:367