S.S. Sikka v. Registrar of Companies

1 May, 2007. While entertaining these two petitions for quashing of aforesaid complains, the proceedings before trial court were stayed vide order of 9th May, 2007. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to the complaints in question, evidence already recorded by trial court and the order of revisional court of 30th May, 2006 vide which co-accused-Raj Kumar Sharma had been t_·" discharged for the offences in question. Learned counsel for petitioner /-.; contends that case of petitioner is at par with the case of co-accused-Raj Kumar Sharma and so, these proceedings qua petitioner ought to be quashed. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the grounds on which quashing of these proceedings is sought pertain to realm of evidence and so, these proceedings ought not to be quashed. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the material on record, I find that case of petitioner could not be considered by the CRL.MCs. 689-690 of2007 Page 2 learned revisional court while discharging co-accused-Raj Kumar Sharma, as petitioner was Proclaimed Offender then. In view of trial court admitting petitioner on bail, it would be appropriate.that petitioner raises the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of charge. Since evidence of KG. Mathur (PW-1) and J.K. Jolly (PW-2) has been already recorded by the trial court and learned counsel for respondent had not pointed that any other witness is to be examined by trial court, therefore, recording of pre-charge of evidence is -. dispensed with as learned counsel for petitioner also submits that these witnesses are not required to be cross-examined any further. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner would be relying upon the.evidence already recorded as petitioner claims parity with co-accused-Raj Kumar Sharma. Such a 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 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). Ifan effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specifically when the applicant may not have availed ofthat remedy." Applying the dictum of the Apex Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy (supra) as referred to hereinabove, the above-captioned two CRL.MCs. 689-690 of2007 Page[3] I! petitions 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 order. Till the time arguments on the point of framing of charge are heard, personal appearance of petitioner be not insisted upon by trial court, provided petitioner is duly represented through counsel, who does not seek adjournment. It is made clear that if petitioner delays the proceedings before trial court, then the concession of personal exemption granted by this Court to petitioner will not be available to him. If the trial court finds that no case is made out against petitioner, then this order will not stand in the way of trial court to discharge petitioner. Needless to say, if trial court finds that the case of petitioner is not at par with co-accused-Raj Kumar Sharma, then a speaking order would be passed and petitioner will be at liberty to avail ofthe remedy in accordance with law. Let parties appear before trial court on 19th December, 2013. The above-captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of while refraining to comment upon merits, lest it may prejudice petitioner at the time ofhearing at the charge stage. Trial court be apprised ofthis order forthwith.

DECEMBER 02, 2013 s CRL.MCs. 689-690 of2007 ~) JUDGE Page[4]