Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) CRL.M.C. 1888/2011 & CrI.M.A.6743/2013 ARUN SEDWALv ; ; Petitioner rllllrdugh: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
Ver^sus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. RaviNayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State with ASI Satish Chand
(ii) CRL.M.C. 1975/2011 & CrI.M.A.7014/2013 NP SINGH Petitioner
Tl^ough: Mr. SudarshanRaja, Advocate
(i) CRL.M.C. 1888/2011 & CrI.M.A.6743/2013 ARUN SEDWALv ; ; Petitioner rllllrdugh: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
Ver^sus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. RaviNayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State with ASI Satish Chand
(ii) CRL.M.C. 1975/2011 & CrI.M.A.7014/2013 NP SINGH Petitioner
Tl^ough: Mr. SudarshanRaja, Advocate
VERSUS
''M. •
Through: Mr. RaviNayak, Additional Public ; with ASI Satish Chand
(iii) CRL.M.C. 3239/2011 & Crl.M.A.l1505/2013
H R KASHYAP Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
Through: Mr. RaviNayak, Additional Public ; with ASI Satish Chand
(iii) CRL.M.C. 3239/2011 & Crl.M.A.l1505/2013
H R KASHYAP Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF N.C.T. oSf DELHI AND ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public i with ASI Satish Chand
(iv) CRL.M.C. 3246/2011 & Crl.M.A.11537/2013 CRL.M.Cs.1888. 1975, 3239, 3246, 2291, 1976 &3627 of2011 Page1
VH
2013:DHC:6630 S ANANDAN . Petitioner Xllrpugh: Mr S.K. Dubey, Mr. S. K.
••,Chaturvedi and Mr. Rajmangal ;' Kumar, Advocates
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public i with ASI Satish Chand
(iv) CRL.M.C. 3246/2011 & Crl.M.A.11537/2013 CRL.M.Cs.1888. 1975, 3239, 3246, 2291, 1976 &3627 of2011 Page1
VH
2013:DHC:6630 S ANANDAN . Petitioner Xllrpugh: Mr S.K. Dubey, Mr. S. K.
••,Chaturvedi and Mr. Rajmangal ;' Kumar, Advocates
VERSUS
GURDAYAL SINGH Respondent Tiirough: Mr. RaviNayak, Additional Public
(v) CRL-MJC;2297/2011 & CrLM.A.8428/2013 Y P SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
(v) CRL-MJC;2297/2011 & CrLM.A.8428/2013 Y P SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
VERSUS
(vi) CRL.M.C. 1976/2011 & Crl.M.A.7016/2011 NP SINGH Petitioner tjirpugh: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
.iiversus i Prosecutor for Respondent-State with ASI Satish Chand
(vii) CRL.MC. 3627/2011 & Crl.M.A.12930/2011 ARUN GOYAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr S.K. Dubey, Mr. S. K.
Chaturvedi and Mr. Rajmangal , ,i Kumar, Advocates
.iiversus i Prosecutor for Respondent-State with ASI Satish Chand
(vii) CRL.MC. 3627/2011 & Crl.M.A.12930/2011 ARUN GOYAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr S.K. Dubey, Mr. S. K.
Chaturvedi and Mr. Rajmangal , ,i Kumar, Advocates
VERSUS
I ''! • •
CRL.M.Cs.1888. 1975, 3239, 3246. 2297, 1976 & 3627 of2011 Page 2
1 ' I ' 'ir.
GURDAYAL SINGHv' - Respondent i' Prosecutor for Respondent-State
CRL.M.Cs.1888. 1975, 3239, 3246. 2297, 1976 & 3627 of2011 Page 2
1 ' I ' 'ir.
GURDAYAL SINGHv' - Respondent i' Prosecutor for Respondent-State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUiSTICE SUNIL GAUR
18.11.2013 In the above-captioned seven petitions, quashing of Criminal
Complaint No.30/2010 and 31/2010 and the summoning order of 4''"
January, 2011 is soughton merits. Learnedcounselfor petitioners submit that impugned summoning order of 4"^ January, 2011 in the above- captioned petitions is common and the grounds to seek quashing of aforesaid two complaints and the common summoning order are identical. None has appeared on behalf of second respondent at the final hearing in the above-captioned seven petitions, which were heard togetherand by this common order, they are being disposedof
Vide impugned order of 4'*^ January, 2011 in the complaint of second respondent, petitioners have been summoned for the offences under Sections 167/420/471/477 read with Section 120-B of/PC.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners had submitted that petitioner-y4rw« Goyal was Financial Advisor andChiefAccounts Officer
;• • 'K ' • : at the relevant time and the role attributed to him is that he had sent a communication to Director, Electronic Data Processing (EDP) with regard to the certain comrnunications stating that accumulation of bill arrears with regard to those accounts was ? 73,000/-. It was pointed out that petitioner-#./*.iS'mg/z vyas the Disciplinary Authority, who had
CRLMCs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246, 2297, 1976&3627of2011 Page 3 lb returned the finding of giiilt in the inquiry proceedings qua second respondent, who, at the relevant time, was meter reader.
It was further pointed out that ^&\ii\onQV-H.R.Kashyap had filed the brief in the disciplinary}proceedings against second respondent and i^QiitionQV-S.Anandan wasr^ction Officer ofVigilance Department who had issued a reminder to second respondent for filing his written statement to the charges in the disciplinary proceedings. It was also pointed out that petitioner-KP. was the Disciplinary Authority in departmental proceedings qua respondent No.2 who had issued a show- cause notice to second respondent. Regarding petitioner-^rw« Sedwal, it was submitted that he was Additional General Manager, Delhi Electricity
Supply Undertaking (converted into Delhi Vidyut Board) who was the
Disciplinary Authority and he had issued the charge-sheet to second respondent in the departmental proceedings.
According to learned counsel for petitioners, summoning of petitioners in thesetwo criminal complaints is an abuse of process of the
Court and that these two complaints of second respondent are a counter blast to the inquiry proceedings initiated against second respondent. It waspointed outthat learned counsel forpetitioners that another accused-
VK.S.Chauhan in the CC No.30/2010 had filed the revision petition against impugned summoning order and he has been discharged by the learned revisional court vide order of lO"^ April, 2012. Lastly, it was submitted that prior sanctionfor prosecution of petitionerswho are public i servants is mandatory under Section 81 of Delhi Vidyut Board Act and even under Delhi Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
CRL.M.Cs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246,'2297.1976 & 3627 of2011 Page 4
.''.• •'I'V- I VI"
Upon hearing and ohi perusal of the aforesaid two complaints in question and the common summoning order, I find that petitioners have alternate and efficacious remedy available to them to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of framing of charges. When alternate and efficacious remedy is available, then inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not required to be exercised. It is so said in view of the dictum of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias
Ramu V. Kowuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, which is as under: -
18.11.2013 In the above-captioned seven petitions, quashing of Criminal
Complaint No.30/2010 and 31/2010 and the summoning order of 4''"
January, 2011 is soughton merits. Learnedcounselfor petitioners submit that impugned summoning order of 4"^ January, 2011 in the above- captioned petitions is common and the grounds to seek quashing of aforesaid two complaints and the common summoning order are identical. None has appeared on behalf of second respondent at the final hearing in the above-captioned seven petitions, which were heard togetherand by this common order, they are being disposedof
Vide impugned order of 4'*^ January, 2011 in the complaint of second respondent, petitioners have been summoned for the offences under Sections 167/420/471/477 read with Section 120-B of/PC.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners had submitted that petitioner-y4rw« Goyal was Financial Advisor andChiefAccounts Officer
;• • 'K ' • : at the relevant time and the role attributed to him is that he had sent a communication to Director, Electronic Data Processing (EDP) with regard to the certain comrnunications stating that accumulation of bill arrears with regard to those accounts was ? 73,000/-. It was pointed out that petitioner-#./*.iS'mg/z vyas the Disciplinary Authority, who had
CRLMCs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246, 2297, 1976&3627of2011 Page 3 lb returned the finding of giiilt in the inquiry proceedings qua second respondent, who, at the relevant time, was meter reader.
It was further pointed out that ^&\ii\onQV-H.R.Kashyap had filed the brief in the disciplinary}proceedings against second respondent and i^QiitionQV-S.Anandan wasr^ction Officer ofVigilance Department who had issued a reminder to second respondent for filing his written statement to the charges in the disciplinary proceedings. It was also pointed out that petitioner-KP. was the Disciplinary Authority in departmental proceedings qua respondent No.2 who had issued a show- cause notice to second respondent. Regarding petitioner-^rw« Sedwal, it was submitted that he was Additional General Manager, Delhi Electricity
Supply Undertaking (converted into Delhi Vidyut Board) who was the
Disciplinary Authority and he had issued the charge-sheet to second respondent in the departmental proceedings.
According to learned counsel for petitioners, summoning of petitioners in thesetwo criminal complaints is an abuse of process of the
Court and that these two complaints of second respondent are a counter blast to the inquiry proceedings initiated against second respondent. It waspointed outthat learned counsel forpetitioners that another accused-
VK.S.Chauhan in the CC No.30/2010 had filed the revision petition against impugned summoning order and he has been discharged by the learned revisional court vide order of lO"^ April, 2012. Lastly, it was submitted that prior sanctionfor prosecution of petitionerswho are public i servants is mandatory under Section 81 of Delhi Vidyut Board Act and even under Delhi Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
CRL.M.Cs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246,'2297.1976 & 3627 of2011 Page 4
.''.• •'I'V- I VI"
Upon hearing and ohi perusal of the aforesaid two complaints in question and the common summoning order, I find that petitioners have alternate and efficacious remedy available to them to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of framing of charges. When alternate and efficacious remedy is available, then inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not required to be exercised. It is so said in view of the dictum of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias
Ramu V. Kowuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, which is as under: -
"13. 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 ofHaryana). If
f 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 ofthat remedy."
In the light of aforesaid, the above-captioned seven petitions and the applications are disposed of while not commenting upon merits lest it may prejudice either side at the hearing on the point of charge and petitioners are at liberty to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court on the point of framing of charge and petitioner would be at liberty to seek parity with co-accusQd-V.K.S.Chauhan, who has been discharged by the revisional court. Needless to say, if the trial court does not agree
CRL.M.CS.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246, 2297, 1976 & 3627 of2011 Page 5 r with the revisional court's order and chooses to proceed against petitioners, then the conteiitipns raised on behalf of petitioners shall be dealt with by passing aspewing and well-reasoned order.
In the peculiar fads .i^hd circumstances of these cases, personal appearance before the trial court is dispensed with till the hearing on the point of framing of charge, is concluded by the trial court provided petitioners are duly represented by their counsel, who do not seek adjournment.
The above-captioned seven petitions and the applications are accordingly disposed of.
NOVEMBER 18^ 2Q13
1' ;•
JIL GAUR)
JUDGE
CRLMCs.1888, 1975, 3239. 3246, 2297,1976 & 3627 of2011 Page 6
Court will not Exercise its powers under this section, specifically when the applicant may not have availed ofthat remedy."
In the light of aforesaid, the above-captioned seven petitions and the applications are disposed of while not commenting upon merits lest it may prejudice either side at the hearing on the point of charge and petitioners are at liberty to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court on the point of framing of charge and petitioner would be at liberty to seek parity with co-accusQd-V.K.S.Chauhan, who has been discharged by the revisional court. Needless to say, if the trial court does not agree
CRL.M.CS.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246, 2297, 1976 & 3627 of2011 Page 5 r with the revisional court's order and chooses to proceed against petitioners, then the conteiitipns raised on behalf of petitioners shall be dealt with by passing aspewing and well-reasoned order.
In the peculiar fads .i^hd circumstances of these cases, personal appearance before the trial court is dispensed with till the hearing on the point of framing of charge, is concluded by the trial court provided petitioners are duly represented by their counsel, who do not seek adjournment.
The above-captioned seven petitions and the applications are accordingly disposed of.
NOVEMBER 18^ 2Q13
1' ;•
JIL GAUR)
JUDGE
CRLMCs.1888, 1975, 3239. 3246, 2297,1976 & 3627 of2011 Page 6
JUDGMENT