Harish Chadha vs Subhash Chander Kathuria And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 91 Del

Citation : 2005 Latest Caselaw 91 Del
Judgement Date : 19 January, 2005

Delhi High Court

Harish Chadha vs Subhash Chander Kathuria And Ors. on 19 January, 2005

Author: R Sodhi

Bench: M Sharma, R Sodhi

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi J.

1. Writ Petition (Criminal) 977 of 2004 has been filed with a prayer to direct the third respondent to register an FIR against the first and second respondent for having cheated the petitioner of Rs. 4,24,45,195/- in the first instance and Rs. 1,76,000/- in the second instance.

2. Notice on this petition was issued and a status report called for. On a perusal of the status report it appears that a written complaint was received from the petitioner at the concerned police station upon which an inquiry was instituted to ascertain the correctness of the allegations which inquiry was conducted by SI Rajiv Kumar of the Economic Offences Wing, who, upon a thorough inquiry, found no substance in the allegations levelled by the petitioner and also did not find any cognizable offence is closed in the complaint. In the petition filed in this court, bald allegations have been made regarding the business transaction between the petitioner and the first respondent but no particulars showing any cognizable offence have been levelled.

3. Counsel has argued that this court should call for the material from the first respondent which would include books of accounts and/or all transactions between the parties to ascertain for itself whether the dealings between the parties have been fair. Counsel for the petitioner had undertaken to support his case by way of judicial precedents, but inspite of opportunity given, till date no such precedents have been cited.

4. Having carefully gone through the writ petition and the status report, I am of the opinion that in the event the police finds no cognizable offence committed, the petitioner is not left without remedy under which recourse may be had. Since an alternative efficacious remedy is available at law, it would not be appropriate for this court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters of this sort. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 977 of 2004 is dismissed.