Full Text
Translation output
·- HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 673/2008
VIVEKBATRA
Through:
CRL.M.C. 673/2008
VIVEKBATRA
Through:
VERSUS
..... Petitioner Mr. Pradeep K. Bakshi & Mr. Kushagra Pandit, Advocates
SANDEEP GROVER & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo
SANDEEP GROVER & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
08.10.2013 Quashing of CC No.680/1 for commission of offences under Section
408 read with Section 120B IPC and order of 22nd November, 2007 vide which petitioner has been summoned as an accused is sought on the ground that respondent-complainant has no locus to maintain the complaint in question qua petitioner, who is a government servant and because the car was purportedly entrusted to petitioner's wife by virtue of her employment with respondent-complainant.
At the hearing, it was pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that in pursuance of interim order passed in this matter, the car in question already stands returned to respondent-complainant by petitioner's wife in the year 2008 and so no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings arising out ofcomplaint in question.
Learned counsel for respondent-complainant had submitted that on a bare perusal of the complaint (Annexure P-11), prima facie case is made out
Crl.M.C.No.673/2008 Page 1 I 2013:DHC:6816
• against petitioner as well as his wife as they had undertaken to return the car in question but had failed to do so. Thus, dismissal of this petition is sought.
Learned counsel for petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to a legal notice of 22nd September, 2005 sent by respondent-complainant to petitioner's wife regarding car in question and there is no reference in the aforesaid legal notice of any role ofpetitioner.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the complaint m question, pre- summomng evidence and the material on record, I find that unless respondent-complainant is confronted with the legal notice of 22nd September, 2005, it cannot be used against respondent-complainant. Infact, clear factual position will only emerge after respondent-complainant is cross-examined on behalf of petitioner and thereafter only it will become clear as to whether a prima facie case is made out against petitioner or not and as to whether proceedings qua petitioner ought to continue or not.
In the light of what has been observed above, this petition is disposed of while not commenting upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice either side and with liberty to petitioner to raise the pleas taken herein before the trial court after he has cross-examined respondent-complainant during recording of pre-charge evidence. Needless to say that if trial court finds that no case for proceeding against petitioner is made out, then this order will not stand in the way of trial court to discharge petitioner.
With aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
~- (SUNIL GAUR)
Judge OCTOBER 08, 2013 Crl.M.C.No.673/2008 Page 2
2013:DHC:6816
08.10.2013 Quashing of CC No.680/1 for commission of offences under Section
408 read with Section 120B IPC and order of 22nd November, 2007 vide which petitioner has been summoned as an accused is sought on the ground that respondent-complainant has no locus to maintain the complaint in question qua petitioner, who is a government servant and because the car was purportedly entrusted to petitioner's wife by virtue of her employment with respondent-complainant.
At the hearing, it was pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that in pursuance of interim order passed in this matter, the car in question already stands returned to respondent-complainant by petitioner's wife in the year 2008 and so no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings arising out ofcomplaint in question.
Learned counsel for respondent-complainant had submitted that on a bare perusal of the complaint (Annexure P-11), prima facie case is made out
Crl.M.C.No.673/2008 Page 1 I 2013:DHC:6816
• against petitioner as well as his wife as they had undertaken to return the car in question but had failed to do so. Thus, dismissal of this petition is sought.
Learned counsel for petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to a legal notice of 22nd September, 2005 sent by respondent-complainant to petitioner's wife regarding car in question and there is no reference in the aforesaid legal notice of any role ofpetitioner.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the complaint m question, pre- summomng evidence and the material on record, I find that unless respondent-complainant is confronted with the legal notice of 22nd September, 2005, it cannot be used against respondent-complainant. Infact, clear factual position will only emerge after respondent-complainant is cross-examined on behalf of petitioner and thereafter only it will become clear as to whether a prima facie case is made out against petitioner or not and as to whether proceedings qua petitioner ought to continue or not.
In the light of what has been observed above, this petition is disposed of while not commenting upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice either side and with liberty to petitioner to raise the pleas taken herein before the trial court after he has cross-examined respondent-complainant during recording of pre-charge evidence. Needless to say that if trial court finds that no case for proceeding against petitioner is made out, then this order will not stand in the way of trial court to discharge petitioner.
With aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
~- (SUNIL GAUR)
Judge OCTOBER 08, 2013 Crl.M.C.No.673/2008 Page 2
2013:DHC:6816
JUDGMENT