Full Text
CRL.M.C. 2290/2016
NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri & Mr. Sumit Nagpal, Advs.
Through; Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with ASI Dushyant Panwar, PS
Defence Colony.
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Hrishekesh Baruah & Mr. Siddhant Kaushak, Advs.for R-2 & 3.
NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri & Mr. Sumit Nagpal, Advs.
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State Kaushak, Advs.for R-2, 3 & 4.
2018:DHC:8586
STATE(GNCT OF DELHI)
Through:
Through:
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)
Through:
Respondents Kaushak, Advs. Petitioner Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State
VANDANA GOYAL & ORS. Respondent
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Hrishekesh Baruah & Mr. Siddhant Kaushak, Advs.
10.12.2018 These four petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)broughta challenge to the order dated 08.12.2014
(FIR) no. 894/1997 ofpolice station Crime Branch (Defence Colony) and to the identical orders dated 04.01.2016 of the Court of Sessions in criminal revision petition nos. 29/2015 and 06/2015.
Since common questions of fact and law arise, these petitions relating to the same criminal case, between the same set of parties, have been clubbed and taken up for hearing together.
The FIR was registered at the instance ofNational Stock Exchange of
India (NSE). The investigation having been completed, the charge-sheet was filed on 16.02.2000. The investigating agency stated in the said charge- sheet that it had gathered evidence showing the complicity of the private party respondents in these petitions in offences punishable under Sections
406/419/420/468/471/477A and Section 120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC). The CMM took cognizance of the said officers on the basis of said charge-sheet and summoned the respondents as accused persons.
The question of charge came up for consideration good 14years later.
By order dated 08.12.2014, the CMM found that there was sufficient material on record to put the accused persons on trial on the charge for offences under Section 409 and 120 B IPC. He framed the formal charges under the said two heads on 13.12.2014.
The accused persons challenged the above said order in the court of sessions invoking its inherent jurisdiction by the afore-mentioned two petitions. The said petitions were allowed, by two identical orders passed on
CRL.M.C. 2290/2016 & conn. page 3 of6
04.01.2016, the revisional court observing that charge under Section
ORDER
409 IPG and consequently also the charge for the offence under Section 120 B IPG were not made out. The order of the GMM was, thus, set aside, this resulting intheaccused persons being "discharged". The above said orders have been challenged both by the complainant (NSE) as alsoby the State who filed these petitions. These matters were heard at some length on 07.12.2018. They were adjourned for today as the counsel for the accused persons wanted time to seek instructions. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents (accused persons) submitted, on instructions, that they do not have any objection if orders both of the GMM, and of the revisional court, are set aside and the matter remitted to the GMM for re-hearing and fresh decision on the question of charge. The learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant (NSE), and the learned additional public prosecutor, representing the State agree to this request. It may be noted for record that the learned senior counsel for the accused persons fairly conceded that the order of GMM was not appropriate in that it did not deal with any issue concerning offences other than that of criminal breach of trust. The order is conspicuously silent on the prayer in the charge-sheet for prosecution to be initiated for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 477A IPG, which were part of the case of which cognizance had been taken. In fact, there is no consideration of the allegations to such effect or the evidence presented by the prosecution (investigating agency) in its support.
CRL.M.C. 2290/2016& conn. 4 of6 The learned senior counsel for the respondent also fairly conceded that when the matter had reached the revisional court (the court of sessions), it havingentertained the said challenge to the order of the CMM, it was duty bound to examine the case comprehensively by taking into account all the background facts, allegations and the offences alleged to have been committed and then return its conclusions as to the legality, propriety, correctness or regularity of the proceedings before the inferior court. The court of sessions seems to have approached the matter from the narrow lens of subjecting the case to scrutiny with reference to the charge that had been ordered to be framed for the offence under Section 409 IPC which was not onlynot correct but virtual abdication ofits responsibility. The prayer of the private party respondents is accepted. The impugned orders dated 08.12.2014 of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and dated 04.01.2016 of the court of sessions in Crl. Rev. Petitions 29/2015 and 06/2015 are hereby set aside. The matter arising out of the criminal case relating to charge-sheet presented incase FIR No. 894/1997 ofpolice station Crime Branch (Defence Colony) is remitted to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for fresh hearing on the question ofcharge and fresh adjudication thereafter in accordance with law. As noted earlier, the case relates to 1997. The charge-sheet was filed 18 years ago. It is a matter of lament that the case continues to linger till this day at the threshold atthe stage of consideration of charge. This cannot be allowed to continue.
CRL.M.C. 2290/2016 & conn. The CMM, therefore, is directed to hear the parties on not more than two dates of hearing, to be fixed by him suitable to his calendar and then decide the issue of charge expeditiously, preferably within two months of the date of first appearance being hereby fixed. In order that the right of hearing is not misused to protract the proceedings, it is directed that all sides will present their written synopsis of arguments, running into not more than four sheets, supported by the relevant case law, duly highlighted and referenced, in advance before the date ofhearing. It is hoped and expected that the CMM will pass a comprehensive order dealing with all facts and issues as arise. Needless to add, he shall not feel bound or influenced by any observations made in the previous orders. The parties shall appear before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 15"^ January, 2019. This disposes ofthe petitions. DECEMBER 10, 2018 nk .K.GA
CRL.M.C. 2290/2016 & conn. page 6 of6
JUDGMENT