Full Text
Translation output
$--10.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
TR.P.(CRL.)5/2015 & CRL MA 224/2015
HEMANT KUMAR SACHDEVA Petitioner
Through: Dr Ashutosh,Advocate
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
TR.P.(CRL.)5/2015 & CRL MA 224/2015
HEMANT KUMAR SACHDEVA Petitioner
Through: Dr Ashutosh,Advocate
VERSUS
R S MEENA Respondent
Through:
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
09.01.2015 This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 407
CrPC to seek transfer ofthe petitioner's complaint bearing CC No.47/2012 from thejurisdiction ofMM-SaketCourt,to CMM Patiala House Court.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had been illegally detained and subjected to physical and mental torture by the respondent/accused in relation to an alleged customs duty evasion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had raised the aforesaid aspect before the learned ACMM-01 on 19.03.2012 hearing the case
"Customs Vs. Deepak Rishi"., The learned ACMM,however, by placing reliance on the decision ofthis Court in J.P.Singh v. Vinay Kanodia,2011
(3)JCC 1792,held that he did not havejurisdiction to entertain that aspect ofthe matter. The petitioner was left to seek his remedy elsewhere before a competent Court.
Consequently, the petitioner preferred a complaint in the Court of
2015:DHC:11804
•>-
ACMM, Saket Court. He submits that in those proceedings, only the complainant has been examined. In the meantime,the Supreme Court has reversed the decision ofthis Court in J.P. Singh (supra) vide its decision dated 10.01.2013 in Criminal Appeal Nos.89-90/2013 {Vinay Kanodia v.
J.P. Singh), and directed the learned Magistrate to complete the criminal proceedings within six months. Consequently,the petitionersoughttransfer ofthe complaint to the Court ofthe ACMM-01,Patiala House Courts on
15.10.2014. However,thelearned MM-02,SaketCourtobserved thathe did nothave the power oftransfer. Consequently,the presentpetition has been preferred.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw his Complaint Case No.47/2012 filed before the learned ACMM,Saket Courts and to present the same before the learned
CMM,Patiala House Courts,since that Court would havejurisdiction. He submits that all the records pertaining to the customs duty evasion case are before the learned CMM,Patiala House Courts.
In view of the aforesaid statement, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the complaint presently pending before the learned Magistrate at
Saket Courts, and to present the same before the learned CMM,Patiala
House Courts,who shall deal with thesame in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of.
Dasti.
VIPIN SANGHI,J JANUARY 09,2015 2015:DHC:11804
09.01.2015 This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 407
CrPC to seek transfer ofthe petitioner's complaint bearing CC No.47/2012 from thejurisdiction ofMM-SaketCourt,to CMM Patiala House Court.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had been illegally detained and subjected to physical and mental torture by the respondent/accused in relation to an alleged customs duty evasion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had raised the aforesaid aspect before the learned ACMM-01 on 19.03.2012 hearing the case
"Customs Vs. Deepak Rishi"., The learned ACMM,however, by placing reliance on the decision ofthis Court in J.P.Singh v. Vinay Kanodia,2011
(3)JCC 1792,held that he did not havejurisdiction to entertain that aspect ofthe matter. The petitioner was left to seek his remedy elsewhere before a competent Court.
Consequently, the petitioner preferred a complaint in the Court of
2015:DHC:11804
•>-
ACMM, Saket Court. He submits that in those proceedings, only the complainant has been examined. In the meantime,the Supreme Court has reversed the decision ofthis Court in J.P. Singh (supra) vide its decision dated 10.01.2013 in Criminal Appeal Nos.89-90/2013 {Vinay Kanodia v.
J.P. Singh), and directed the learned Magistrate to complete the criminal proceedings within six months. Consequently,the petitionersoughttransfer ofthe complaint to the Court ofthe ACMM-01,Patiala House Courts on
15.10.2014. However,thelearned MM-02,SaketCourtobserved thathe did nothave the power oftransfer. Consequently,the presentpetition has been preferred.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw his Complaint Case No.47/2012 filed before the learned ACMM,Saket Courts and to present the same before the learned
CMM,Patiala House Courts,since that Court would havejurisdiction. He submits that all the records pertaining to the customs duty evasion case are before the learned CMM,Patiala House Courts.
In view of the aforesaid statement, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the complaint presently pending before the learned Magistrate at
Saket Courts, and to present the same before the learned CMM,Patiala
House Courts,who shall deal with thesame in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of.
Dasti.
VIPIN SANGHI,J JANUARY 09,2015 2015:DHC:11804
JUDGMENT