Full Text
Translation output
f/ iliHi
$~R-173 to 178 «& 180
* IN THE HIGH f p^RT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+(i) CRL.M.C! 1888/2011 &Crl.M.A.6743/2013
ARUN SEDWAL ; : J Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
$~R-173 to 178 «& 180
* IN THE HIGH f p^RT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+(i) CRL.M.C! 1888/2011 &Crl.M.A.6743/2013
ARUN SEDWAL ; : J Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public j ! . Prosecutor forRespondent-State i ' with ASI Satish Chand
+ (ii) CRL.M.C. 1975/2011 & Crl.M.A.7014/2013
NP SINGH ' ; Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public j ! . Prosecutor forRespondent-State i ' with ASI Satish Chand
+ (ii) CRL.M.C. 1975/2011 & Crl.M.A.7014/2013
NP SINGH ' ; Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF N.C.T. QF DELHI AND ANR. Respondents
Prosecutor for Respondent-State
• . with ASI Satish Chand
I r ,1' ' 1
+(iii) CRL.Mfc:l 3239/2011 &Crl.M.A.11505/2013
HRKASHYAP Petitioner
At)^gh: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate versus:
' iii i-
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Thr'ough: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public
I Prosecutor for Respondent-State
I with ASI Satish Chand
•|
+ (iv) CRL.M.C. 3246/2011 & CrI.M.A.l1537/2013
CRL.M.Cs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246.,2297, 1976& 3627of2011 Page 1 i'''; M•
• ' Kl.il:;;
-1 !L.
1 ' •
2013:DHC:6631
S ANANDAN i'?;
1-ii: versus!
•• Ml;-'-
Petitioner
Mr S.K. Dubey, Mr. S. K.
Chaturvediand Mr. Rajmangal
Kumar, Advocates
GURDAYAL SINGE Respondent
+ (v) CRL.M.C. 2297/2011 & Crl.M.A.8428/2013
Y P SESTGH Petitioner
Tlu-ough: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
Prosecutor for Respondent-State
• . with ASI Satish Chand
I r ,1' ' 1
+(iii) CRL.Mfc:l 3239/2011 &Crl.M.A.11505/2013
HRKASHYAP Petitioner
At)^gh: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate versus:
' iii i-
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Thr'ough: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public
I Prosecutor for Respondent-State
I with ASI Satish Chand
•|
+ (iv) CRL.M.C. 3246/2011 & CrI.M.A.l1537/2013
CRL.M.Cs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246.,2297, 1976& 3627of2011 Page 1 i'''; M•
• ' Kl.il:;;
-1 !L.
1 ' •
2013:DHC:6631
S ANANDAN i'?;
1-ii: versus!
•• Ml;-'-
Petitioner
Mr S.K. Dubey, Mr. S. K.
Chaturvediand Mr. Rajmangal
Kumar, Advocates
GURDAYAL SINGE Respondent
+ (v) CRL.M.C. 2297/2011 & Crl.M.A.8428/2013
Y P SESTGH Petitioner
Tlu-ough: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF N.C.T. OJF DELHI AND ANR. Respondents
Tl^oiigh: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public j ; i Prosecutor for Respondent-State
' ' I ' '•
+(vi) CRL.Mic. 1976/2011 &CrI.M.A.7016/2011
NP SINGH V; Petitioner
Thfough: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
Tl^oiigh: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public j ; i Prosecutor for Respondent-State
' ' I ' '•
+(vi) CRL.Mic. 1976/2011 &CrI.M.A.7016/2011
NP SINGH V; Petitioner
Thfough: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR Respondents
Thrbugh: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public
I : i;i Prosecutor for Respondent-State
Iv: i ' with ASI Satish Chand
,•1 • - .1 i V''
+ (vii) CRL.]Vf.C. 3627/2011 & CrLM.A.12930/2011
ARUN GOYAL
VCTSUS
Petitioner
Through: Mr S.K. Dubey, Mr. S. K.
Chaturvedi and Mr. Rajmangal
Kumar, Advocates
CRL.M.Cs.1888. 1975, 3239, 3246; 2^97,1976 &3627 of2011 Page 2 i I'
I ' ; ^ 1 li'
OURDAYAL SINQjH Respondent
Thrbugh: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public
I : i;i Prosecutor for Respondent-State
Iv: i ' with ASI Satish Chand
,•1 • - .1 i V''
+ (vii) CRL.]Vf.C. 3627/2011 & CrLM.A.12930/2011
ARUN GOYAL
VCTSUS
Petitioner
Through: Mr S.K. Dubey, Mr. S. K.
Chaturvedi and Mr. Rajmangal
Kumar, Advocates
CRL.M.Cs.1888. 1975, 3239, 3246; 2^97,1976 &3627 of2011 Page 2 i I'
I ' ; ^ 1 li'
OURDAYAL SINQjH Respondent
CORAM: ;
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
% ;i8,li^2013
In the above-capti(ined seven petitions, quashing of Criminal
Complaint No.30/2010 and: 31/2010 and the summoning order of 4"^
' ' i i I
January, 2011 is sought oh merits. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that impugned summoning order of 4^*^ January, 2011 in the above-
• I captioned petitions is common and the grounds to seek quashing of
1_ aforesaid two complaints' and the common summoning order are identical. None has appeared on behalf of second respondent at the final
I hearing in the above-captioned seven petitions, which were heard together and by this common .order, they are being disposed of.
I'i'i !j ' '
Vide impugned orderj of 4"^ January, 2011 in the complaint of
. , .'I second respondent, petitioners have been summoned for the offences under Sections 167/420/471/477 read with Section 120-B of/PC.
. ' i• ! ' 1 .
At the hearing, learried counsel for petitioners had submitted that petitioner-^rw« Goyal was Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer 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 communications stating that accumulation of bill arrears withregard to thosC: a^^ounts was ? 73,000/-. It was pointed out that petMoner-N.P.Singh/^fj^as, the Disciplinary Authority, who had
CRL.M.Cs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246m297, 1976 & 3627 of2011 Page 3 i: , r returned the finding of guUr in the inquiry proceedings qua second jvl''ii''• respondent, who, at the releiyanttinie, was meter reader.
Itwas further pointed'biit that petitioner-i/.i?Xa5/i>'a/? had filed the brief in the disciplinary[i.i3r6ceedings against second respondent and
I-;,! •i'' petitioner-5'.^«aKJfl« was: Section Officer of Vigilance Department who had issued a reminder to second respondent for filing his written statement to the charges irl |the disciplinary proceedings. It was also pointed out that petitioner-was the Disciplinary Authority in departmental proceedings' q^a respondent No.2 who had issued a show- cause notice to second respondent. Regarding petitioner-^rww Sedwal, it j'ii-.H.j was submitted that hewa| Additional General Manager, Delhi Electricity
Supply Undertaking (convertpii 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 leamedpcounsel for petitioners, summoning of petitioners in these two 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 was pointed out that lea!med;icbunsel for petitioners that another accused-
V.K.S.Chauhan in the dlS!']^o.30/2010 had filed the revision petition against impugned summonin| prder and he has been discharged by the learned revisional court yidei;Order of 10^ April, 2012. Lastly, it was submitted that prior sanction, fpr prosecution of petitionerswho are public servants is mandatory underrSection 81 of Delhi Vidyut Board Act and even under Delhi Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
CRL.M.Cs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246} 1976 & 3627 of2011 Page 4
Upon hearing and pniperusal of the aforesaid two complaints in question and the commiDn summoning order, I find that petitioners have alternate and efficacious;remejd|;availableto them to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial coiirt at the stage of framing of charges. When alternate and efficacious is available, then inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section482rpfCr.P.C. is not required to be exercised. It is so said in view of the !dietum of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias
Ramu V. Kovvuri Satyanar^ana Reddy &Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, which is as under: - !
"13. It is wellsettled that the inherentpowers under
' ' ' i|
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 canridi be used if it is inconsistent with specific prov^sip>ns provided under the Code (vide
Kavita v. St^e B.S.Joshi v. State ofHaryana). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High
Court will ntit exfrcise itspowers 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, l hearing on the point of charge and petitioners are at liberty,to iurgb the pleas taken herein before the trial
•fif ifj'i'if''' court on the point offirainM^[6fcharge and petitioner would be at liberty to seek parity with co-acc|sedrr.Ar.5'.C/?aw/?fl«, who has been discharged by the revisional court. N|^e(d|ess to say, ifthe trial court does not agree
CRLMCs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246:^^97, 1976&3627of2011 Page 5 rVlj '
!i,i ' ^
' • , 'i'i
•j
':r : 'i' with the revisional c6u^'s| larder and chooses to proceed against petitioners, then the contehtitos raised on behalf of petitioners shall be dealt with by passing a speaking and well-reasonedorder.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, personal appearance before the trial icourt is dispensed with till the hearing on the point of framing of charge! is'i concluded by the trial court provided petitioners are duly represented by their counsel, who do not seek
.i 1' adjournment. iii; i
, fj!'' ' i'
The above-captioned sseven petitions and the applications are
' •1 j " accordingly disposed of.
NOVEMBER 18,2013
S • l' '
I; '' ^ •
V':i i.-
CRL.M.Cs.1888, 1975, 3239, 32^ 2297, 1976 &3627 of2011 ilL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 6
% ;i8,li^2013
In the above-capti(ined seven petitions, quashing of Criminal
Complaint No.30/2010 and: 31/2010 and the summoning order of 4"^
' ' i i I
January, 2011 is sought oh merits. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that impugned summoning order of 4^*^ January, 2011 in the above-
• I captioned petitions is common and the grounds to seek quashing of
1_ aforesaid two complaints' and the common summoning order are identical. None has appeared on behalf of second respondent at the final
I hearing in the above-captioned seven petitions, which were heard together and by this common .order, they are being disposed of.
I'i'i !j ' '
Vide impugned orderj of 4"^ January, 2011 in the complaint of
. , .'I second respondent, petitioners have been summoned for the offences under Sections 167/420/471/477 read with Section 120-B of/PC.
. ' i• ! ' 1 .
At the hearing, learried counsel for petitioners had submitted that petitioner-^rw« Goyal was Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer 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 communications stating that accumulation of bill arrears withregard to thosC: a^^ounts was ? 73,000/-. It was pointed out that petMoner-N.P.Singh/^fj^as, the Disciplinary Authority, who had
CRL.M.Cs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246m297, 1976 & 3627 of2011 Page 3 i: , r returned the finding of guUr in the inquiry proceedings qua second jvl''ii''• respondent, who, at the releiyanttinie, was meter reader.
Itwas further pointed'biit that petitioner-i/.i?Xa5/i>'a/? had filed the brief in the disciplinary[i.i3r6ceedings against second respondent and
I-;,! •i'' petitioner-5'.^«aKJfl« was: Section Officer of Vigilance Department who had issued a reminder to second respondent for filing his written statement to the charges irl |the disciplinary proceedings. It was also pointed out that petitioner-was the Disciplinary Authority in departmental proceedings' q^a respondent No.2 who had issued a show- cause notice to second respondent. Regarding petitioner-^rww Sedwal, it j'ii-.H.j was submitted that hewa| Additional General Manager, Delhi Electricity
Supply Undertaking (convertpii 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 leamedpcounsel for petitioners, summoning of petitioners in these two 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 was pointed out that lea!med;icbunsel for petitioners that another accused-
V.K.S.Chauhan in the dlS!']^o.30/2010 had filed the revision petition against impugned summonin| prder and he has been discharged by the learned revisional court yidei;Order of 10^ April, 2012. Lastly, it was submitted that prior sanction, fpr prosecution of petitionerswho are public servants is mandatory underrSection 81 of Delhi Vidyut Board Act and even under Delhi Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
CRL.M.Cs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246} 1976 & 3627 of2011 Page 4
Upon hearing and pniperusal of the aforesaid two complaints in question and the commiDn summoning order, I find that petitioners have alternate and efficacious;remejd|;availableto them to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial coiirt at the stage of framing of charges. When alternate and efficacious is available, then inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section482rpfCr.P.C. is not required to be exercised. It is so said in view of the !dietum of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias
Ramu V. Kovvuri Satyanar^ana Reddy &Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, which is as under: - !
"13. It is wellsettled that the inherentpowers under
' ' ' i|
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 canridi be used if it is inconsistent with specific prov^sip>ns provided under the Code (vide
Kavita v. St^e B.S.Joshi v. State ofHaryana). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High
Court will ntit exfrcise itspowers 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, l hearing on the point of charge and petitioners are at liberty,to iurgb the pleas taken herein before the trial
•fif ifj'i'if''' court on the point offirainM^[6fcharge and petitioner would be at liberty to seek parity with co-acc|sedrr.Ar.5'.C/?aw/?fl«, who has been discharged by the revisional court. N|^e(d|ess to say, ifthe trial court does not agree
CRLMCs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246:^^97, 1976&3627of2011 Page 5 rVlj '
!i,i ' ^
' • , 'i'i
•j
':r : 'i' with the revisional c6u^'s| larder and chooses to proceed against petitioners, then the contehtitos raised on behalf of petitioners shall be dealt with by passing a speaking and well-reasonedorder.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, personal appearance before the trial icourt is dispensed with till the hearing on the point of framing of charge! is'i concluded by the trial court provided petitioners are duly represented by their counsel, who do not seek
.i 1' adjournment. iii; i
, fj!'' ' i'
The above-captioned sseven petitions and the applications are
' •1 j " accordingly disposed of.
NOVEMBER 18,2013
S • l' '
I; '' ^ •
V':i i.-
CRL.M.Cs.1888, 1975, 3239, 32^ 2297, 1976 &3627 of2011 ilL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 6
JUDGMENT