Full Text
Translation output
$-23
* IN THE IIIGH COURT
+ w.P.(cRL) 796120rr
IIARI OM
OF DELHI ,A.T NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.M.S.Bansal, Adv.
VETSUS
STATI] ..... ItesPondent
Through: Mr.Dayan Krishnan,Asc for the State'
COIIAM:
IION'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
% 10.10.2011
Ily this petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of the FII{ on the ground that thc IiII{ doss not disclose commission of cognizable offence and during ilvcstigation no evidence has been found against the Petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that he is facing a protracted trial as for the last four years and argutnents on chargc have not been hearcl and disposed of. A reporl has been received ftom the leamed Trial Court according to which, the case is now fixed for argumelts on charge on 14th Decernber, 2OII. In view of this position, learncd counsel for the Pctitioncr does not press his prayer to this extent.
H/.P.(CtU) 796/201I puge 1 of 2
2011:DHC:18071 a'
J
'I'hus, thc only prayer on which quashing is sought is that therc is no evidencc against the Petitioner. It may be noted that the FII{ in the present casc discloses the commission of cognizable offence and states that the mobile phone of the complainant was stolen. In view of the fact that the FIR
6iscloscs the comrnission of the cognizable offence the same cannot be quashecl. Further whether there is prima facie evidencc or strong suspicion that thc Petitioner has committed the offence would have to bc seen at the stage of hearing on charge by the learned Trial Court. Section 239 CI.P-C. provides an efficacious remedy to the Petitioner to urge all the grounds raiscd in the prcscnt writ petition before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the stagc of lrarning of charge, who is duty bound to exatnine thc entirc material and hear the Petitioner before passing an order on charge. In view of the alternative remecly being available, this Court will not examine the charge shcet and come to a conclusion that no case is tnade out when the case is fixed for fiaming of charges.
I'he petition is accordingly dismissed. fi"*wffi-
' MUKTA GUPTA,J
OcroBER 10,20LL tmbt tv.P.(cRL) 796/2011 puge 2 of 2
2011:DHC:18071
* IN THE IIIGH COURT
+ w.P.(cRL) 796120rr
IIARI OM
OF DELHI ,A.T NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.M.S.Bansal, Adv.
VETSUS
STATI] ..... ItesPondent
Through: Mr.Dayan Krishnan,Asc for the State'
COIIAM:
IION'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
% 10.10.2011
Ily this petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of the FII{ on the ground that thc IiII{ doss not disclose commission of cognizable offence and during ilvcstigation no evidence has been found against the Petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that he is facing a protracted trial as for the last four years and argutnents on chargc have not been hearcl and disposed of. A reporl has been received ftom the leamed Trial Court according to which, the case is now fixed for argumelts on charge on 14th Decernber, 2OII. In view of this position, learncd counsel for the Pctitioncr does not press his prayer to this extent.
H/.P.(CtU) 796/201I puge 1 of 2
2011:DHC:18071 a'
J
'I'hus, thc only prayer on which quashing is sought is that therc is no evidencc against the Petitioner. It may be noted that the FII{ in the present casc discloses the commission of cognizable offence and states that the mobile phone of the complainant was stolen. In view of the fact that the FIR
6iscloscs the comrnission of the cognizable offence the same cannot be quashecl. Further whether there is prima facie evidencc or strong suspicion that thc Petitioner has committed the offence would have to bc seen at the stage of hearing on charge by the learned Trial Court. Section 239 CI.P-C. provides an efficacious remedy to the Petitioner to urge all the grounds raiscd in the prcscnt writ petition before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the stagc of lrarning of charge, who is duty bound to exatnine thc entirc material and hear the Petitioner before passing an order on charge. In view of the alternative remecly being available, this Court will not examine the charge shcet and come to a conclusion that no case is tnade out when the case is fixed for fiaming of charges.
I'he petition is accordingly dismissed. fi"*wffi-
' MUKTA GUPTA,J
OcroBER 10,20LL tmbt tv.P.(cRL) 796/2011 puge 2 of 2
2011:DHC:18071
JUDGMENT