Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) CRL.M.C. 158/2007 & Crl.M.A. 544/2007 SURINDER SINGH & MANPREET KAUR ..... Petitioners
STATE
Through: Ms. Chaitali Jain and Mr. Mohd.
Adnan, Advocates
(i) CRL.M.C. 158/2007 & Crl.M.A. 544/2007 SURINDER SINGH & MANPREET KAUR ..... Petitioners
STATE
Through: Ms. Chaitali Jain and Mr. Mohd.
Adnan, Advocates
VERSUS
..... Responden~
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-
State with SI JQginder Singh Ms. Manjira Dasgupta, Advocate for Mr. Shyel Trehan, Advocate for respondent No.2-MCD
(ii) CRL.M.C. 2236/2007 & Crl.M.A. 7880/2007 KIMTI BABBAR & MANMEET SINGH ..... Petitioners
STATE
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-
State with SI JQginder Singh Ms. Manjira Dasgupta, Advocate for Mr. Shyel Trehan, Advocate for respondent No.2-MCD
(ii) CRL.M.C. 2236/2007 & Crl.M.A. 7880/2007 KIMTI BABBAR & MANMEET SINGH ..... Petitioners
STATE
CORAM:
Through: Ms. Chaitali Jain and Mr. Mohd.
Adnan, Advocates
Adnan, Advocates
VERSUS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-
State with SI Joginder Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
13.11.2013 In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR
No.641/2006 under Section 188 of /PC and Sections 4611466 of Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act registered at P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi is sought
Crl.MC.J58 & 2236 of07 Page I 2013:DHC:6762 on merits.
Since aforesaid quashing is sought on identical grounds, therefore, both these petitions are being heard together and by this common order, they are being disposed of.
Ms. Chaitali Jain, Advocate, appears on behalf of petitioners and submits that there is no instruction from petitioners.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State informs that the charge-sheet in this FIR case has been already filed.
In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to entertain these petitions as petitioners have an efficacious and alternate remedy to raise the pleas before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of framing of charge. On this aspect, pertinent observations of the Apex
Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias Ramu v. Kovvuri
Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437 are 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 ifit is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code (vide Kavita v. State and B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana). If 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. "
Applying the dictum ofApex Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy
(supra) this petition and the application are disposed of while not commenting upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice either side at
Crl.MC.158 & 2236 of07 Page2 the hearing on the point of framing of charge, with liberty to petitioners to urge the pleas taken herein at the stage of hearing on the point of framing of charge before the trial court. Needless to say that Apex Court's decision in Ada/at Prasad Vs Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 will not stand in the way of trial court to drop the proceedings against the petitioner if it is found that no case for proceedings against petitioners is made out.
Interim orders of 17th January, 2007 [in Crl.M C. 158/07] and 20th July, 2007 [in Crl.M C. 2236/07] are made absolute. In the event of arrest, petitioners be admitted to bail, subject to their furnishing bail-bond to the satisfaction ofthe trial court.
Both these petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ~
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 13, 2013 s Crl.MC.J58 & 2236 of07 Page3
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-
State with SI Joginder Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
13.11.2013 In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR
No.641/2006 under Section 188 of /PC and Sections 4611466 of Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act registered at P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi is sought
Crl.MC.J58 & 2236 of07 Page I 2013:DHC:6762 on merits.
Since aforesaid quashing is sought on identical grounds, therefore, both these petitions are being heard together and by this common order, they are being disposed of.
Ms. Chaitali Jain, Advocate, appears on behalf of petitioners and submits that there is no instruction from petitioners.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State informs that the charge-sheet in this FIR case has been already filed.
In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to entertain these petitions as petitioners have an efficacious and alternate remedy to raise the pleas before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of framing of charge. On this aspect, pertinent observations of the Apex
Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias Ramu v. Kovvuri
Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437 are 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 ifit is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code (vide Kavita v. State and B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana). If 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. "
Applying the dictum ofApex Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy
(supra) this petition and the application are disposed of while not commenting upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice either side at
Crl.MC.158 & 2236 of07 Page2 the hearing on the point of framing of charge, with liberty to petitioners to urge the pleas taken herein at the stage of hearing on the point of framing of charge before the trial court. Needless to say that Apex Court's decision in Ada/at Prasad Vs Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 will not stand in the way of trial court to drop the proceedings against the petitioner if it is found that no case for proceedings against petitioners is made out.
Interim orders of 17th January, 2007 [in Crl.M C. 158/07] and 20th July, 2007 [in Crl.M C. 2236/07] are made absolute. In the event of arrest, petitioners be admitted to bail, subject to their furnishing bail-bond to the satisfaction ofthe trial court.
Both these petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ~
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 13, 2013 s Crl.MC.J58 & 2236 of07 Page3
JUDGMENT