Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) CRL.M.G. 1888/2011 & CrLM.A.6743/2013 ARUN SEDWAL / Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
(i) CRL.M.G. 1888/2011 & CrLM.A.6743/2013 ARUN SEDWAL / Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak,Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State with AST Satish Chand
(ii) CRL.M.C. 1975/2011 & CrI.M.A.7014/2013
NP SINGH I ^ • Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak,Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State with AST Satish Chand
(ii) CRL.M.C. 1975/2011 & CrI.M.A.7014/2013
NP SINGH I ^ • Petitioner
VERSUS
!, STATE OF N.C.T. oSf DELHI AND ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public with ASI Satish Chand
(iii) CRL.M^C. 3239/2011 & Crl.M.A.11505/2013
HRKASHYAP i: Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public with ASI Satish Chand
(iii) CRL.M^C. 3239/2011 & Crl.M.A.11505/2013
HRKASHYAP i: Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF N.C.T. 01^ DELHI AND ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public : Prosecutor for Respondent-State with ASI Satish Chand
I
(iv) CRL.M.C. 3246/2011 & CrI.M.A.11537/2013 CRL.M.Cs:i888, 1975, 3239, 3246, 2297, 1976 & 3627 of2011 Page 1
2013:DHC:6633 SANANDAN Petitioner Thibugh: Mr S.K. Dubey, Mr. S. K. li . 1 Chaturvedi and Mr. Rajmangai Kumar, Advocates
GURDAYAL SIN(i|||;!§i' Respondent ;iWroug^ Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public
' , ' Prosecutor for Respondent-State (v) CRL.M.C. 2297/2011 & CrI.M.A.8428/2013
Y P SINGH Petitioner
Through; Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public : Prosecutor for Respondent-State with ASI Satish Chand
I
(iv) CRL.M.C. 3246/2011 & CrI.M.A.11537/2013 CRL.M.Cs:i888, 1975, 3239, 3246, 2297, 1976 & 3627 of2011 Page 1
2013:DHC:6633 SANANDAN Petitioner Thibugh: Mr S.K. Dubey, Mr. S. K. li . 1 Chaturvedi and Mr. Rajmangai Kumar, Advocates
GURDAYAL SIN(i|||;!§i' Respondent ;iWroug^ Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public
' , ' Prosecutor for Respondent-State (v) CRL.M.C. 2297/2011 & CrI.M.A.8428/2013
Y P SINGH Petitioner
Through; Mr. Sudarshan Raja, Advocate
VERSUS
• ' f
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak, Additional Public
•; Prosecutor for Respondent-State
'' 1 (vi) CRL.]vj[.C; 1976/2011 &CrLM.A.7016/2011
NP SINGH [! ; Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudarshan Raja,Advocate
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak, Additional Public
•; Prosecutor for Respondent-State
'' 1 (vi) CRL.]vj[.C; 1976/2011 &CrLM.A.7016/2011
NP SINGH [! ; Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudarshan Raja,Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF N.C.T. 01^ DELHI AND ANR. Respondents
Thirough: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public ji Prosecutor for Respondent-State
,I with ASI Satish Chand (vii) CRL.]^.Clik27/2011 &CrLM.A.12930/2011
ARUNGOYAL Jii^||' Petitioner Tlf-Ough: Mr S.K. Dubey, Mr. S. K.
')i!i I Chaturvedi andMr. Rajmangai i;;ip Kumar, Advocates vei:sus
CRL.M.Cs.1888. 1975, 3239, 3240297, 1976 &3627 of2011 Page 2
. !!. i Jj;;
•ili''H' ill-
GURDAYAL SINai||ii|vi; Respondent v[|||rjD!tigh: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public
'ISIlb'
Thirough: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public ji Prosecutor for Respondent-State
,I with ASI Satish Chand (vii) CRL.]^.Clik27/2011 &CrLM.A.12930/2011
ARUNGOYAL Jii^||' Petitioner Tlf-Ough: Mr S.K. Dubey, Mr. S. K.
')i!i I Chaturvedi andMr. Rajmangai i;;ip Kumar, Advocates vei:sus
CRL.M.Cs.1888. 1975, 3239, 3240297, 1976 &3627 of2011 Page 2
. !!. i Jj;;
•ili''H' ill-
GURDAYAL SINai||ii|vi; Respondent v[|||rjD!tigh: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public
'ISIlb'
CORAM: ^
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER i^ill.2013 ^,lr' i |iH [ , ' In the above-captionedi'seven petitions, quashing of Criminal
" .i: I ii •
Complaint No.30/2010 and,i31/2010 and the summoning order of 4'''
.ii'lf;,, ; i" January, 2011 is sought oii meHts. Learned counsel forpetitioners submit that impugned summoning;| prder of 4^ January, 2011 in the above- captioned petitions is cominon and the grounds to seek quashing of aforesaid two complaints!i'and the common summoning order are
I •i, ; identical. None has appeared on behalfof second respondent at the final hearing in the above-captibned seven petitions, which were heard
' ' ' '' I together and by this commoii;order, they are beingdisposed of
'i- Vide impugned ord^r of 4 January, 2011 in the complaint of
II '•j; I second respondent, petitiq^er^; have been summoned for the offences under Sections 167/420/4,71|(477 read with Section 120-B of/PC.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners had submitted that petitioner-v4rM« Goyal was Financial Advisor and ChiefAccounts Officer
''•i' at the relevant time and tli|; role attributed to him is that he had sent a communication to Director, Electronic Data Processing (EDP) with regard to the certain comjnunications stating that accumulation of bill arrears with regard to thosQ acqounts was ? 73,000/-. It was pointed out that petitioner-A^/^iSV«g^|riv^^irthe Disciplinary Authority, who had
CRL.M.Cs.1888, 1975, 3239, 1976 & 3627 of2011 iilil I'V
;»5 if.;, i' •;
Page 3
. ..• ,/i
. ilj''* ! -j! ,:ri' returned the finding of:;^uilt;, in the inquiry proceedings qua second respondent, who, atthe relevlanf^ was meter reader.
It was further pointe(i (|uflthat p^titionQY-KKKashyap had filedthe
••' 'I li' •' i'i '' I brief in the disciplinary prbceedings against second respondent and petitionQT-S.Anandan was Section Officer of Vigilance 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 petitionerHZP.^mg/? was the Disciplinary Authority in
• ' ! departmental proceedings qua respondent No.2 who had issued a show- cause notice to second respondent. Regarding petitioner-^rM« Sedwal, it
I" ! was submitted that he was i|\.dditional General Manager, Delhi Electricity
Supply Undertaking (convened into Delhi Vidyut Board) who was the
Disciplinary Authority and jlie had issued the charge-sheet to second respondent in the departmential proceedings.
•' •ii '
According to learned, counsel for petitioners, summoning of petitioners in these two crirtiinal 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 learnedjCounsel for petitioners that another accused-
V.K.S.Chauhan in the ;C(i^|No30/2010 had filed the revision petition against impugned sumnionii;i|iorder and he has been discharged by the learned revisional court vid^ order of 10^ April, 2012. Lastly, it was submitted that prior sanction;|br prosecution ofpetitioners who are public servants is mandatory uniierlSection 81 of Delhi Vidyut BoardAct and even under Delhi Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
. i CRL.U.CS.I88S, 1975, 3239. 3246,\2297,1976 & 3627of20II Page 4
:• g', S'- m i;: r';.
Upon hearing and <^n|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
V-i' herein before the trial cou^iiatthe stage of firaming of charges. When alternate and efficacious rernedy is available, then inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sectioni 48i2;|qf Cr.P.C. is not required to beexercised. It is so said in view of the, dictum of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias
Ramu V. Kowuri Satyandrqyana Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, which is as under: -
A• j' '
"13. It is well: settled that the inherent powers under
Section 482 can be exercised only when no other j ' ' 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
•jjii ' • specific provtsj^qns provided under the Code (vide
Kavita v. Statpj^j^dB.S.Joshi v. State ofHaryana). If an effective qiternative remedy is available, the High
Court will no0^rcise its powers under this section, specifically wke^h-the applicant may not have availed ofthat remedy:f';' iili'i
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 sidejat the hearing on the point of charge and petitioners are at liberty, t^! lurge the pleas taken herein before the trial court on the point offramihglj0^charge and petitioner would be at liberty to seek parity with co-acM0kfV.K.S.Chauhan, who has been discharged by the revisional court. Nie'ed|ess to say, if the trial court does not agree
CRL.M.Cs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3^46^.2297, 1976 &3627 of2011 Page 5
:h with the revisional coiii^f'order and chooses to proceed against petitioners, then the contentions raised on behalf of petitioners shall be dealt with by passing a speakiilg and well-reasoned order.
In the peculiar facts! i&d 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 j , adjournment.
The above-captioned Iseven petitions and the applications are accordingly disposed of.
NOVEMBER 18,2013 s s''
. : , !,I • i iii
CRLMCs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246, 2297, 1976 & 3627 of2011
5UNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 6
ORDER i^ill.2013 ^,lr' i |iH [ , ' In the above-captionedi'seven petitions, quashing of Criminal
" .i: I ii •
Complaint No.30/2010 and,i31/2010 and the summoning order of 4'''
.ii'lf;,, ; i" January, 2011 is sought oii meHts. Learned counsel forpetitioners submit that impugned summoning;| prder of 4^ January, 2011 in the above- captioned petitions is cominon and the grounds to seek quashing of aforesaid two complaints!i'and the common summoning order are
I •i, ; identical. None has appeared on behalfof second respondent at the final hearing in the above-captibned seven petitions, which were heard
' ' ' '' I together and by this commoii;order, they are beingdisposed of
'i- Vide impugned ord^r of 4 January, 2011 in the complaint of
II '•j; I second respondent, petitiq^er^; have been summoned for the offences under Sections 167/420/4,71|(477 read with Section 120-B of/PC.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners had submitted that petitioner-v4rM« Goyal was Financial Advisor and ChiefAccounts Officer
''•i' at the relevant time and tli|; role attributed to him is that he had sent a communication to Director, Electronic Data Processing (EDP) with regard to the certain comjnunications stating that accumulation of bill arrears with regard to thosQ acqounts was ? 73,000/-. It was pointed out that petitioner-A^/^iSV«g^|riv^^irthe Disciplinary Authority, who had
CRL.M.Cs.1888, 1975, 3239, 1976 & 3627 of2011 iilil I'V
;»5 if.;, i' •;
Page 3
. ..• ,/i
. ilj''* ! -j! ,:ri' returned the finding of:;^uilt;, in the inquiry proceedings qua second respondent, who, atthe relevlanf^ was meter reader.
It was further pointe(i (|uflthat p^titionQY-KKKashyap had filedthe
••' 'I li' •' i'i '' I brief in the disciplinary prbceedings against second respondent and petitionQT-S.Anandan was Section Officer of Vigilance 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 petitionerHZP.^mg/? was the Disciplinary Authority in
• ' ! departmental proceedings qua respondent No.2 who had issued a show- cause notice to second respondent. Regarding petitioner-^rM« Sedwal, it
I" ! was submitted that he was i|\.dditional General Manager, Delhi Electricity
Supply Undertaking (convened into Delhi Vidyut Board) who was the
Disciplinary Authority and jlie had issued the charge-sheet to second respondent in the departmential proceedings.
•' •ii '
According to learned, counsel for petitioners, summoning of petitioners in these two crirtiinal 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 learnedjCounsel for petitioners that another accused-
V.K.S.Chauhan in the ;C(i^|No30/2010 had filed the revision petition against impugned sumnionii;i|iorder and he has been discharged by the learned revisional court vid^ order of 10^ April, 2012. Lastly, it was submitted that prior sanction;|br prosecution ofpetitioners who are public servants is mandatory uniierlSection 81 of Delhi Vidyut BoardAct and even under Delhi Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
. i CRL.U.CS.I88S, 1975, 3239. 3246,\2297,1976 & 3627of20II Page 4
:• g', S'- m i;: r';.
Upon hearing and <^n|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
V-i' herein before the trial cou^iiatthe stage of firaming of charges. When alternate and efficacious rernedy is available, then inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sectioni 48i2;|qf Cr.P.C. is not required to beexercised. It is so said in view of the, dictum of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias
Ramu V. Kowuri Satyandrqyana Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, which is as under: -
A• j' '
"13. It is well: settled that the inherent powers under
Section 482 can be exercised only when no other j ' ' 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
•jjii ' • specific provtsj^qns provided under the Code (vide
Kavita v. Statpj^j^dB.S.Joshi v. State ofHaryana). If an effective qiternative remedy is available, the High
Court will no0^rcise its powers under this section, specifically wke^h-the applicant may not have availed ofthat remedy:f';' iili'i
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 sidejat the hearing on the point of charge and petitioners are at liberty, t^! lurge the pleas taken herein before the trial court on the point offramihglj0^charge and petitioner would be at liberty to seek parity with co-acM0kfV.K.S.Chauhan, who has been discharged by the revisional court. Nie'ed|ess to say, if the trial court does not agree
CRL.M.Cs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3^46^.2297, 1976 &3627 of2011 Page 5
:h with the revisional coiii^f'order and chooses to proceed against petitioners, then the contentions raised on behalf of petitioners shall be dealt with by passing a speakiilg and well-reasoned order.
In the peculiar facts! i&d 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 j , adjournment.
The above-captioned Iseven petitions and the applications are accordingly disposed of.
NOVEMBER 18,2013 s s''
. : , !,I • i iii
CRLMCs.1888, 1975, 3239, 3246, 2297, 1976 & 3627 of2011
5UNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 6
JUDGMENT