Full Text
Translation output
$-17& 18 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) CRL.M.C. 3848/2012 & Crl.M.A. No.18575/2013
SANTOSH SAMRA AND OTPIERS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sudeep Kumar Shrotriya, Mr. Sumit Paliwal and Mr. Anwar Rafiq, Advocates
SANTOSH SAMRA AND OTPIERS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sudeep Kumar Shrotriya, Mr. Sumit Paliwal and Mr. Anwar Rafiq, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE AND OTHER
Through:
Respondent Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-
State with Inspector Vinod Gandhi and SI Dharmendra Kumar
Mr. P.K. Agarwal and Ms. M.
Hussain, Advocates for respondent No.2 (ii) CRL.M.C. 3854/2012 & Crl.M.A. No.18589/2013
M/S JACKSON LABORATORIES PVT LTD AND O^fflER Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sudeep Kumar Shrotriya, Mr. Sumit Paliwal and Mr. Anwar Rafiz, Advocates
Through:
Respondent Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-
State with Inspector Vinod Gandhi and SI Dharmendra Kumar
Mr. P.K. Agarwal and Ms. M.
Hussain, Advocates for respondent No.2 (ii) CRL.M.C. 3854/2012 & Crl.M.A. No.18589/2013
M/S JACKSON LABORATORIES PVT LTD AND O^fflER Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sudeep Kumar Shrotriya, Mr. Sumit Paliwal and Mr. Anwar Rafiz, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE AND OTHER
Through:
Respondent Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-
State with Inspector Vinod Gandhi and SI DhaiTnendra Kumar
Mr. P.K. Agarwal and Ms. M.
Hussain, Advocates for respondent No.2
Through:
Respondent Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-
State with Inspector Vinod Gandhi and SI DhaiTnendra Kumar
Mr. P.K. Agarwal and Ms. M.
Hussain, Advocates for respondent No.2
CORAM;
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR CrlMC. 3848 & 3854 of2012 Page 1
2013:DHC:7721
03.10.2013 Above captioned two petitions arise out of same FIR i.e. FIR
No.199/2011 under Sections 420/120B/467/467/409/471 of IPC registered at P.S. Economic Offences Wing, Delhi. With the consent of
Ld. Counsel for the parties, these two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners had submitted that Delhi Police has no jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid FIR as the agreement pertains to land situated at Amritsar, Punjab. It was further submitted that the dispute is entirely civil in nature.
In this connection, he had drawn this Court's attention to the consent order dated 3"^ August, 2012 passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) 855/2009 wherein it has been directed that petitioner may dispose of the land in question, but out of the sale proceeds, a sum of ?10 crores has to kept apart in a Fixed Deposit
Receipt which shall be kept alive by him and not be encashed without prior permission ofthe Court.
At the hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
Respondent-State pointed out that the investigation of this FIR case is stillunder progress and it willtake time to complete the investigation.
After having heard both the sides and on perusal of the FIR in question and the status report filed by respondent-State, I find that the status report filed on l?'^ August, 2012 is quite detailed one and it discloses the facts of this case in quite detail. Considering the nature of
CrlM.C. 3848 &3854 of2012 Page 2 the investigation being conducted, I find that it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. at this stage. It would indeed be in the interest of justice if the investigation is allowed to continue as, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is apparent lack of territorial jurisdiction or that the ingredients of the offences alleged are clearly lacking. Let the investigation be expedited.
Without commenting upon the merits of this case, both these petitions and the applications are accordingly disposed of with liberty to petitioners to seek the appropriate remedy available in law after the fmal report is filed in these cases.
(SUNEL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 03, 2013 s CrlMC. 3848&3854of2012 Page 3
2013:DHC:7721
03.10.2013 Above captioned two petitions arise out of same FIR i.e. FIR
No.199/2011 under Sections 420/120B/467/467/409/471 of IPC registered at P.S. Economic Offences Wing, Delhi. With the consent of
Ld. Counsel for the parties, these two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners had submitted that Delhi Police has no jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid FIR as the agreement pertains to land situated at Amritsar, Punjab. It was further submitted that the dispute is entirely civil in nature.
In this connection, he had drawn this Court's attention to the consent order dated 3"^ August, 2012 passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) 855/2009 wherein it has been directed that petitioner may dispose of the land in question, but out of the sale proceeds, a sum of ?10 crores has to kept apart in a Fixed Deposit
Receipt which shall be kept alive by him and not be encashed without prior permission ofthe Court.
At the hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
Respondent-State pointed out that the investigation of this FIR case is stillunder progress and it willtake time to complete the investigation.
After having heard both the sides and on perusal of the FIR in question and the status report filed by respondent-State, I find that the status report filed on l?'^ August, 2012 is quite detailed one and it discloses the facts of this case in quite detail. Considering the nature of
CrlM.C. 3848 &3854 of2012 Page 2 the investigation being conducted, I find that it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. at this stage. It would indeed be in the interest of justice if the investigation is allowed to continue as, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is apparent lack of territorial jurisdiction or that the ingredients of the offences alleged are clearly lacking. Let the investigation be expedited.
Without commenting upon the merits of this case, both these petitions and the applications are accordingly disposed of with liberty to petitioners to seek the appropriate remedy available in law after the fmal report is filed in these cases.
(SUNEL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 03, 2013 s CrlMC. 3848&3854of2012 Page 3
JUDGMENT