Full Text
CRL.M.C. 1853/2012 & Crl.
M.A. No. 6460/2012
T KONDA REDDY & ANR. Petitioners i
Through: Mr.N.M.Popli,Advocate
Through: Mr.Vinod Kumar, Advocate
M.A. No. 7889/2012
T KONDA REDDY & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr.N.M. Popli, Advocate
Through: Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate
M.A. No. 13710/2012
T KONDA REDDY & ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mr.N.M. Popli, Advocate
Through: Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate
«/„ 21.11.2013
Crl M.C. No. 1853/2012 Page 1 Crl. M.C. No.2224/2012
Crl. M.C No.2717/2012 2013:DHC:6767 In the above captioned three petitions quashing of CC No. 841/09 and summoning order of 26*'' May, 2012; titled M/s Indian Renewable
Energy Development Agency Limited Vs. M/SSri Satyanarayana Power
P.Ltd and CC No. 15153/09 and summoning order 10^ July, 2012 and
CC No. 737-C/09 and summoning order of 21®' July, 2012, is sought on merits.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these three petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned complaints are badin law astherespondent-complainant is fully aware of the fact that the cheques in question were not signed by petitioners and that petitioner was not operating the bank account from which these cheques were drawn and that petitioners had resigned from Directorship of the accused-company much prior to the date of issuance of these cheques and therefore, provisions of Section 138 & 142 of The
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are not attracted.
During the course of hearing, it was disclosed by learned counsel for petitioners that Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. is yet to be framed in the complaints in question.
Since Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has not yet been framed, it is deemed appropriate to relegate petitioners to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the hearing on the point of framing of
Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., as the dictum of Apex Court in
Bhushan Kumar & Anr. Vs. State (NCT ofDelhi) iSc Anr. AIR 2012 SC
Crl. M.C. No. 1853/2012 Page 2 Crl M.C. No. 2224/2012
Crl M.C No.2717/2012
• y
1747 persuades this Court not to exercise inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to entertain this petition. Pertinent observations of
Apex Court in Bhushan Kumar (Supra), are as under:-
"17. It is inherent in Section 251 of the Code that when an accused appears before the trial Court pursuant to summons issued under Section 204 of the Code in a summons trial case, it is the bounden duty ofthe trial Court to carefully go through the allegations made in the charge- sheet or complaint and consider the evidence to come to a conclusion whether or not, commission of any offence is disclosed and if the answer is in the affirmative, the
Magistrate shall explain the substance of the accusation to the accusation to the accused and ask him whether he pleads guilty otherwise, he is bound to discharge the accused as per
Section 239 ofthe Code." Further, on this aspect, the dictum of the Apex Court in Krishan
Kumar Variar vs. Share Shoppe (2010) 12 SCC is as under:-
"4. In our opinion, in such cases where the accused or any other person raises an objection that the trial court has nojurisdiction in the matter, the saidperson shouldfile an application before the trial court making this averment and giving the relevantfacts. Whether a court hasjurisdiction to try/entertain a case will, at least in part, depend upon the facts of the case. Hence, instead of rushing to the higher court against the summoning order, the person concerned should approach the trial court with a suitable application for thispurpose and the trial court should after hearing both the sides and recording evidence, if necessary, decide the
Crl M.C. No. 1853/2012 Page 3 Crl. M.C. No.2224/2012
Crl M.C. No.2717/2012 Q question ofjurisdiction beforeproceeding further with the case.
ORDER
5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant, if so advised, may approach the trial court with a suitable application in this connection and, ifsuch an application isfiled, the trial court shall after hearing both the sides and after recording evidence on the question on jurisdiction, shall decide the question ofjurisdiction before further proceeding with the trial." In view of authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Bhushan Kumar & Krishan Kumar (supra), as referred to hereinabove, these three petitions and application are disposed of while refraining to 'I comment upon meritsof this case, lest it mayprejudice eitherside at trial, with liberty to petitioners to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of framing of Notice and if it is so done, then trial court shall deal with the pleas raised herein by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, if the trial court proceeds to drop the proceedings quapetitioners, thenApexCourt's decision inAdalatPrasad, Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 would not stand in the, way of trial court to do so. Interim orders of22°^ May, 2012 (in Crl. M.C. No. 1853/2012); 6"^ July, 2012 (in Crl. M.C. No. 2224/2012) and 24^ August, 2012 (inCrl. M.C. No. 2717/2012) are made absolute and it is directed that till the trial court decides to frame or not to frame Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. against petitioners, personal appearance of petitioners before the trial court be not insisted, provided they are represented by counsel, who does not seek adjournment. Needless to say Crl M.C. No. 1853/2012 Page 4 Crl M.C No.2224/2012 Crl. M.C No.2717/2012 that if the trial court chooses to frame Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., thenpetitioners would be at liberty to avail of the remedy as available in the law. These threepetitions andapplications are accordingly disposed of NOVEMBER 21,2013 r
(SUNILGAUR) JUDGE CrlM.C. No. 1853/2012 Page 5 Crl M.C. No. 2224/2012 Crl. M.C. No.2717/2012 \p