Full Text
Translation output
$~30&31
* EV THE fflGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 181/2012
DR. YASHWANT SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. VivekAggarwal, Advocate
* EV THE fflGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 181/2012
DR. YASHWANT SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. VivekAggarwal, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sandeep Panwar, PS Greater Kailash
+ CRL.M.C. 2164/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.7651/2012
YASHWANT SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. VivekAggarwal, Advocate
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sandeep Panwar, PS Greater Kailash
+ CRL.M.C. 2164/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.7651/2012
YASHWANT SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. VivekAggarwal, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE &ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sandeep Panwar, PS Greater Kailash
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sandeep Panwar, PS Greater Kailash
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
% 10.10.2013
In the above-captioned first petition quashing of FIR No.173/2011 for the offence under Section 448 of IPC is sought on merits and in the above- captioned second petition quashing of FIR No.77/2012 for the offence of cheating is also sought on merits. Both these petitions were heard together and bythis common order theyarebeing disposed of.
Crl.M.C.Nos.l81&2164 of 2012 Page 1
2013:DHC:6761 r-
\y
In the above-captioned first petition petitioner's counsel had placed reliance upon order of 21®' December, 2012 in CS(OS) No.641/2012 vide which second respondent/complainant of the FIR in the above-captioned first petition has been restrained to create third party interest in the property in question and other riders have also been imposed on second respondent herein. According to learned counsel for petitioner in the face of aforesaid order ofthe Civil Court no offence is made out and so FIR No.173/2011 and proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State had submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and now the matter is listed before the trial court on 6^^ December, 2013 for hearing on the point of framing of the charge.
Since quashing of FIR No.173/2011 is sought on merits, therefore, it is deemed appropriate not to exercise the inherent jurisdiction ofthis Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to relegate petitioner to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the hearing on the point offraming ofcharge.
Since an efficacious remedy is available to petitioner therefore, above- captioned first petition is disposed ofwith liberty to petitioner to urge the pleas taken herein before trial court at the hearing on the point ofcharge with direction to trial court to consider the pleas so raised and to deal with them by passing a reasoned order. Needless to say if trial court fmds no case for proceedings against petitioner is made out then to discharge petitioner.
Inthe above-captioned second petition, it was disclosed atthe hearing that investigation in FIR No.77/2012 is likely to be concluded within this calendar year. Let all efforts be made to do so. Aclear picture will emerge
Crl.M.C.Nos.l81& 2164 of2012 Page 2 once final report is filed in this FIR case. Since quashing of this FIRis also sought on merits, therefore, petitioner has an efficacious remedy of urging the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of charge. Let petitionerdo so.
Finding no compelling reasons to exercise inherent jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. above-captioned second petition is also disposed of with liberty to petitioner to urge the pleas taken herein before the trialcourtat the hearing onthepointof charge.
Above-captioned petitions and the applications are disposed ofas pre- mature while refraining to comment upon merits, lest it may prejudice either sideat the hearing onthepointof charge.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge
OCTOBER 10,2013 vn
Crl.M.C.Nos.l81& 2164 of2012 Page 3
% 10.10.2013
In the above-captioned first petition quashing of FIR No.173/2011 for the offence under Section 448 of IPC is sought on merits and in the above- captioned second petition quashing of FIR No.77/2012 for the offence of cheating is also sought on merits. Both these petitions were heard together and bythis common order theyarebeing disposed of.
Crl.M.C.Nos.l81&2164 of 2012 Page 1
2013:DHC:6761 r-
\y
In the above-captioned first petition petitioner's counsel had placed reliance upon order of 21®' December, 2012 in CS(OS) No.641/2012 vide which second respondent/complainant of the FIR in the above-captioned first petition has been restrained to create third party interest in the property in question and other riders have also been imposed on second respondent herein. According to learned counsel for petitioner in the face of aforesaid order ofthe Civil Court no offence is made out and so FIR No.173/2011 and proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State had submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and now the matter is listed before the trial court on 6^^ December, 2013 for hearing on the point of framing of the charge.
Since quashing of FIR No.173/2011 is sought on merits, therefore, it is deemed appropriate not to exercise the inherent jurisdiction ofthis Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to relegate petitioner to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the hearing on the point offraming ofcharge.
Since an efficacious remedy is available to petitioner therefore, above- captioned first petition is disposed ofwith liberty to petitioner to urge the pleas taken herein before trial court at the hearing on the point ofcharge with direction to trial court to consider the pleas so raised and to deal with them by passing a reasoned order. Needless to say if trial court fmds no case for proceedings against petitioner is made out then to discharge petitioner.
Inthe above-captioned second petition, it was disclosed atthe hearing that investigation in FIR No.77/2012 is likely to be concluded within this calendar year. Let all efforts be made to do so. Aclear picture will emerge
Crl.M.C.Nos.l81& 2164 of2012 Page 2 once final report is filed in this FIR case. Since quashing of this FIRis also sought on merits, therefore, petitioner has an efficacious remedy of urging the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of charge. Let petitionerdo so.
Finding no compelling reasons to exercise inherent jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. above-captioned second petition is also disposed of with liberty to petitioner to urge the pleas taken herein before the trialcourtat the hearing onthepointof charge.
Above-captioned petitions and the applications are disposed ofas pre- mature while refraining to comment upon merits, lest it may prejudice either sideat the hearing onthepointof charge.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge
OCTOBER 10,2013 vn
Crl.M.C.Nos.l81& 2164 of2012 Page 3
JUDGMENT