Full Text
Translation output
o<r $-28, 29 «& 30 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) + CRL.M.C. 2467/2012 & Crl.M.A.Nos.12812/2012 &
16104/2013 GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr. RameshGupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Guleria, Advocate
16104/2013 GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr. RameshGupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Guleria, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Mukhija & Ms. Ira Gupta, Advocates for Respondent
No.2 (ii) + CRL.M.C. 2468/2012 & Crl.M.A.Nos.12815/2012 &
16103/2013 DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Mukhija & Ms. Ira Gupta, Advocates for Respondent
No.2 (ii) + CRL.M.C. 2468/2012 & Crl.M.A.Nos.12815/2012 &
16103/2013 DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate
VERSUS
STATENCT OF DELHI& ANR. Respondents Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate
No.2 Crl.M.CNos. 2467, 2467 &2469 of 2012 Page 1
2013:DHC:6848 (iii) + CRL.M.C. 2469/2012 & CrI.M.A.Nos.12817/2012 &
16095/2013 DHARAM CHAND JAIN«& ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate
No.2 Crl.M.CNos. 2467, 2467 &2469 of 2012 Page 1
2013:DHC:6848 (iii) + CRL.M.C. 2469/2012 & CrI.M.A.Nos.12817/2012 &
16095/2013 DHARAM CHAND JAIN«& ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Respondents Mr. SudhirNandrajog, Sr. Advocate
No.2
No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
25.10.2013 In the above-captioned three petitions quashing of charge-sheet filed in FIR No. 114/2009 under Sections 406/120-B/34 IPC and orders oflO**" May, 2012 and 2"'^ June, 2012 summoning petitioners as accused is sought on merits.
As the challenge to the impugned charge-sheet and the summoning orders is on identical grounds therefore, with the consent of both the sides, the above-captioned three petitions were heard together and are being disposed ofby this common order.
At the hearing, learned senior counsel by petitioners had urged strenuously that from the charge-sheet filed the ingredients of the offence alleged are lacking and the prosecution of petitioners for the offence in question is barred by time. To contend so, reliance is
Crl.M.CNos. 2467,2467 & 2469 of 2012 Page 2 placed upon decisions in Kailash Kumar Sanwatia v. The State of
Bihar & Anr. 2003 IV AD (Cr.) SC 141,Paramjeet Batra v. State of
Uttarakhand 2013 (4) LRC 90 (SC) and Punjab National Bank &
Ors. V. Surendra Prasad Sinha 1992 Cri.L.J.2916.
On the contrary, learned senior counsel for second respondent had relied upon the Apex Court decision in Sardar Singh v. State of
Haryana AIR 1977 SC 1766, Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar
Mohanty AIR 2007 SC 2762 and Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of
Uttar Pradesh Anr. (2013) 2 SCC 435 to contend that the offence ofcriminal misappropriation is a continuing offence and in the instant case offence under Section 409 IPC is made out and to take cognizance for the offence under Section 409 IPC, there is no limitation. It was asserted by learned senior counsel for second respondent that primafacie case for proceeding against petitioners is made out.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned charge-sheet, orders summoning petitioners as accused, the material on record and the decisions cited, I find that petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the hearing on the point of charge, therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to entertain this petition.
Such a course is being adopted in view of dictum of Apex Court in
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias Ramu v. Kowuri Satyanarayana
Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, which is as under: -
"It is well settled that the inherentpowers under Section
482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is
Crl.M.CNos. 2467,2467 & 2469 of 2012 Page 3 available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used ifitis inconsistent with specificprovisionsprovided under the Code (vide Kavita v. State and B.S.Joshi v.
State ofHaryana). Ifan effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specifically when the applicant may not have availedofthatremedy."
Applying the dictum of theApexCourtin Padal Venkata Rama
Reddy (supra) as referred to hereinabove, the above-captioned three petitioners are accordingly disposed ofwith liberty to both the sides to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing onthepoint of charge andif it is so done, thentrial court shall deal with the pleas raised herein by passing a speaking order.
Needless to say, if the trial court finds that no case is made out against petitioners, then this order will not stand in the way of trial court to discharge petitioners and if trial court chooses to proceed against petitioners, then petitioners will have the remedy as available in the law.
Above-captioned petitions and applications are disposed of while refraining to comment upon merits, lest it may prejudice either sideat thehearing onthepointof charge.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge OCTOBER 25,2013 vn Crl.M.C.Nos. 2467,2467 &2469 of2012 Page 4
•d
25.10.2013 In the above-captioned three petitions quashing of charge-sheet filed in FIR No. 114/2009 under Sections 406/120-B/34 IPC and orders oflO**" May, 2012 and 2"'^ June, 2012 summoning petitioners as accused is sought on merits.
As the challenge to the impugned charge-sheet and the summoning orders is on identical grounds therefore, with the consent of both the sides, the above-captioned three petitions were heard together and are being disposed ofby this common order.
At the hearing, learned senior counsel by petitioners had urged strenuously that from the charge-sheet filed the ingredients of the offence alleged are lacking and the prosecution of petitioners for the offence in question is barred by time. To contend so, reliance is
Crl.M.CNos. 2467,2467 & 2469 of 2012 Page 2 placed upon decisions in Kailash Kumar Sanwatia v. The State of
Bihar & Anr. 2003 IV AD (Cr.) SC 141,Paramjeet Batra v. State of
Uttarakhand 2013 (4) LRC 90 (SC) and Punjab National Bank &
Ors. V. Surendra Prasad Sinha 1992 Cri.L.J.2916.
On the contrary, learned senior counsel for second respondent had relied upon the Apex Court decision in Sardar Singh v. State of
Haryana AIR 1977 SC 1766, Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar
Mohanty AIR 2007 SC 2762 and Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of
Uttar Pradesh Anr. (2013) 2 SCC 435 to contend that the offence ofcriminal misappropriation is a continuing offence and in the instant case offence under Section 409 IPC is made out and to take cognizance for the offence under Section 409 IPC, there is no limitation. It was asserted by learned senior counsel for second respondent that primafacie case for proceeding against petitioners is made out.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned charge-sheet, orders summoning petitioners as accused, the material on record and the decisions cited, I find that petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the hearing on the point of charge, therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to entertain this petition.
Such a course is being adopted in view of dictum of Apex Court in
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias Ramu v. Kowuri Satyanarayana
Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, which is as under: -
"It is well settled that the inherentpowers under Section
482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is
Crl.M.CNos. 2467,2467 & 2469 of 2012 Page 3 available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used ifitis inconsistent with specificprovisionsprovided under the Code (vide Kavita v. State and B.S.Joshi v.
State ofHaryana). Ifan effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specifically when the applicant may not have availedofthatremedy."
Applying the dictum of theApexCourtin Padal Venkata Rama
Reddy (supra) as referred to hereinabove, the above-captioned three petitioners are accordingly disposed ofwith liberty to both the sides to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing onthepoint of charge andif it is so done, thentrial court shall deal with the pleas raised herein by passing a speaking order.
Needless to say, if the trial court finds that no case is made out against petitioners, then this order will not stand in the way of trial court to discharge petitioners and if trial court chooses to proceed against petitioners, then petitioners will have the remedy as available in the law.
Above-captioned petitions and applications are disposed of while refraining to comment upon merits, lest it may prejudice either sideat thehearing onthepointof charge.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge OCTOBER 25,2013 vn Crl.M.C.Nos. 2467,2467 &2469 of2012 Page 4
•d
JUDGMENT