Full Text
Translation output
$-37 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 52/2011
HANUMAN TRADING COMPANY THROU. PROP VII<A.S KAPUR Petitioner
Through Mr. Suman Kapur, Adv.
CRL.REV.P. 52/2011
HANUMAN TRADING COMPANY THROU. PROP VII<A.S KAPUR Petitioner
Through Mr. Suman Kapur, Adv.
VERSUS
LOKESH & ANR Respondent
Through None
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
19.08.2011 This petition is against the order dated 1^^ October, 2010 whereby the complaint of the Petitioner was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The
Learned Trial Court clubbed up a number of cases on the issue of jurisdiction and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.
Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr. AIR 1999 SC 3762 considering the scope of Section 177 Cr.P.C. the complaints were dismissed.
De-hors the finding of the learned Trial Court on the issue of jurisdiction, the grievance of the Petitioner is that the Learned Trial Court could not have dismissed the complaint. At best it could have returned the complaint for filing before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
CRL.REV.P. 52/2011 Page 1 of3
2011:DHC:19877 i>r On receipt of this petition, notice was issued to the Respondent through registered A.D., courier and ordinary process. An affidavit of service has been filed as per which Respondents have been served through courier. However, none is present on behalf ofthe Respondents. The issue whether Delhi Court would have jurisdiction to entertain such complaints or not has been referred to the larger Bench and in similar cases it has been further directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the trials in the cases which were directed to be returned from Delhi to be refilled in the other
Courts would continue.
Reference is made to the order dated 9''^ July, 2010 passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 35762/2009 in
Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee and Anr. The order reads as under:
"This Court vide its order dated 17^^ December, 2009 directed the trial Court not to return the complaints filed by the petitioners. This Court did not grant any stay of enquiry and trial ofthe complaints filed by the petitioners. Itis obvious, the order passed by this Court shall not operate as the stay oftrial and enquiry ofthe complaints filed by the petitioners. The trial courts are not precluded from proceedings with the trial if the complaints preferred by the petitioner are ready for trial.
Needless to observe, the trial courts are always entitled to go into the question ofterritorial jurisdiction.
The application is accordingly ordered."
19.08.2011 This petition is against the order dated 1^^ October, 2010 whereby the complaint of the Petitioner was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The
Learned Trial Court clubbed up a number of cases on the issue of jurisdiction and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.
Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr. AIR 1999 SC 3762 considering the scope of Section 177 Cr.P.C. the complaints were dismissed.
De-hors the finding of the learned Trial Court on the issue of jurisdiction, the grievance of the Petitioner is that the Learned Trial Court could not have dismissed the complaint. At best it could have returned the complaint for filing before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
CRL.REV.P. 52/2011 Page 1 of3
2011:DHC:19877 i>r On receipt of this petition, notice was issued to the Respondent through registered A.D., courier and ordinary process. An affidavit of service has been filed as per which Respondents have been served through courier. However, none is present on behalf ofthe Respondents. The issue whether Delhi Court would have jurisdiction to entertain such complaints or not has been referred to the larger Bench and in similar cases it has been further directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the trials in the cases which were directed to be returned from Delhi to be refilled in the other
Courts would continue.
Reference is made to the order dated 9''^ July, 2010 passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 35762/2009 in
Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee and Anr. The order reads as under:
"This Court vide its order dated 17^^ December, 2009 directed the trial Court not to return the complaints filed by the petitioners. This Court did not grant any stay of enquiry and trial ofthe complaints filed by the petitioners. Itis obvious, the order passed by this Court shall not operate as the stay oftrial and enquiry ofthe complaints filed by the petitioners. The trial courts are not precluded from proceedings with the trial if the complaints preferred by the petitioner are ready for trial.
Needless to observe, the trial courts are always entitled to go into the question ofterritorial jurisdiction.
The application is accordingly ordered."
CRL.REV.P. 52/2011 ^
Thus, in the interest of justice, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the complaint of the Petitioner be returned to be filed before the
Court of competent jurisdiction.
Petition is disposed ofwith these directions.
Order dasti.
^MUKTA GUPTA,J AUGUST 19, 2011 'ga'
Thus, in the interest of justice, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the complaint of the Petitioner be returned to be filed before the
Court of competent jurisdiction.
Petition is disposed ofwith these directions.
Order dasti.
^MUKTA GUPTA,J AUGUST 19, 2011 'ga'
CRL.REVP. 52/2011 Page 3 of3
JUDGMENT