Full Text
Translation output
if HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2027/2007
SUBHASH CHAND SHOREWALA & ANR Petitioners
Through: None
CRL.M.C. 2027/2007
SUBHASH CHAND SHOREWALA & ANR Petitioners
Through: None
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
CRL.M.C. 2047/2007
SUBHASH CHAND SHOREWALA Petitioner
Through: None
SUBHASH CHAND SHOREWALA Petitioner
Through: None
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
05.12.2013 In the above-captioned two petitions quashing of CC No.1147/04
^ & CC No.301/1/03 both titled as Naveen Jain v. Subhash Chand
Shorewala & Ors. for the offence under Section 196/209/468/471/120-
B/511/34 IPC and under Section 409 IPC respectively and summoning order of13'*^ February, 2007 is sought on merits.
At the hearing, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that continuance ofproceedings arising out ofafore-noted two complaints in question is an absue of process of the Court as the liability of
CrI.M.C.Nos.2027 & 2047 of 2007 Page 1 2013:DHC:6791 petitioners, if any, is of purely civil nature and that before filing of these criminal complaints, arbitration award had been alreadyrendered but this was not brought to the notice of trial court. To seek quashing of complaint proceedings, learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance upon decisions in SuneetGupta v. Anil Triloknath Sharma & Ors. (2008)
11 see 670, S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs v. Jagannath
(dead) by LRs and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 853 and G.Sagar Suri & Anr. V.
State ofUP iSc Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 636.
At the final hearing, it was disclosed by learned counsel for petitioners that in the complaints in question pre-charge evidence is being recorded by the trial court and the next date ofhearing is 27^ February, 2014.
Since, petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy available to them of urging the pleas taken herein before trial court at the charge stage, therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such course is being adopted in view of dictum of Apex Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias Ramu
V. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 4S7, 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 andB.S.Joshi v. State ofHaryana). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High
Court will not exercise itspowers under this section, Crl.M.C.Nos.2027 & 2047 of 2007 Page 2 specifically when the applicant may not have availed ofthat reinedy."
Applying the dictum of the Apex Court in Padal Venkata Rama
Reddy (supra) as referred to hereinabove, both the petitions are disposed ofwith liberty to petitioners 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 so raised by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Till the arguments on the point of framing of charge are concluded, personal appearance of petitioners be not insisted upon by trial court, provided petitioners are duly represented by their counsel, who does not seek adjournment. However, it is made clear that if petitioners delay the proceedings before the trial court, then petitioners will not have the benefit of exemption from personal appearance extended to them by i this Court. If trial court finds that no case is made out against petitioners, then this order will not stand in the way of trial court to discharge petitioners. If trial court chooses to proceed against petitioners, then trial court shall be at liberty to obtain their presence and petitioners are free to avail of the remedies available to them in law.
Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of while refraining to comment upon merits, lest it may prejudice petitioners before trial court.
JIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 05,2013 vn Crl.M.C.Nos.2027 &2047 of2007 Page 3
\r
05.12.2013 In the above-captioned two petitions quashing of CC No.1147/04
^ & CC No.301/1/03 both titled as Naveen Jain v. Subhash Chand
Shorewala & Ors. for the offence under Section 196/209/468/471/120-
B/511/34 IPC and under Section 409 IPC respectively and summoning order of13'*^ February, 2007 is sought on merits.
At the hearing, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that continuance ofproceedings arising out ofafore-noted two complaints in question is an absue of process of the Court as the liability of
CrI.M.C.Nos.2027 & 2047 of 2007 Page 1 2013:DHC:6791 petitioners, if any, is of purely civil nature and that before filing of these criminal complaints, arbitration award had been alreadyrendered but this was not brought to the notice of trial court. To seek quashing of complaint proceedings, learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance upon decisions in SuneetGupta v. Anil Triloknath Sharma & Ors. (2008)
11 see 670, S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs v. Jagannath
(dead) by LRs and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 853 and G.Sagar Suri & Anr. V.
State ofUP iSc Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 636.
At the final hearing, it was disclosed by learned counsel for petitioners that in the complaints in question pre-charge evidence is being recorded by the trial court and the next date ofhearing is 27^ February, 2014.
Since, petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy available to them of urging the pleas taken herein before trial court at the charge stage, therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such course is being adopted in view of dictum of Apex Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias Ramu
V. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 4S7, 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 andB.S.Joshi v. State ofHaryana). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High
Court will not exercise itspowers under this section, Crl.M.C.Nos.2027 & 2047 of 2007 Page 2 specifically when the applicant may not have availed ofthat reinedy."
Applying the dictum of the Apex Court in Padal Venkata Rama
Reddy (supra) as referred to hereinabove, both the petitions are disposed ofwith liberty to petitioners 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 so raised by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Till the arguments on the point of framing of charge are concluded, personal appearance of petitioners be not insisted upon by trial court, provided petitioners are duly represented by their counsel, who does not seek adjournment. However, it is made clear that if petitioners delay the proceedings before the trial court, then petitioners will not have the benefit of exemption from personal appearance extended to them by i this Court. If trial court finds that no case is made out against petitioners, then this order will not stand in the way of trial court to discharge petitioners. If trial court chooses to proceed against petitioners, then trial court shall be at liberty to obtain their presence and petitioners are free to avail of the remedies available to them in law.
Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of while refraining to comment upon merits, lest it may prejudice petitioners before trial court.
JIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 05,2013 vn Crl.M.C.Nos.2027 &2047 of2007 Page 3
\r
JUDGMENT