Darshan Kumar vs State & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3553 Del

 *                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  Criminal M.C. No.3375 of 2009 & C.M. Appl. No.11396 of 2009

%                                                                            30.07.2010

         DARSHAN KUMAR                                            ...... Petitioner
                                       Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Mr. Shishir Mathur,
                                                Mr. Ritesh Thusu, Mr. N.K. Bhardwaj and
                                                Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocates.

                                            Versus

         STATE & ANR.                                             ......Respondents
                                       Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the State with
                                                Inspector Mohinder Singh, P.S. Okhla
                                                Industrial Area.
                                                Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate for R-2.

                                                               Reserved on: 8th July, 2010
                                                            Pronounced on: 30th July, 2010

         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

                                      JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside order dated

16th January, 2009 passed by the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate and to quash

the proceedings initiated therein under F.I.R. No.290 of 2002 registered under Section

420 IPC at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area. The order dated 16th January, 2009

shows that after receiving charge sheet in case F.I.R. No.290 of 2002, the court took

cognizance of the offence and directed for summoning the accused through Investigating

Officer for 20th July, 2009. Quashing is sought on the ground that the F.I.R. and the

proceedings initiated there under was a gross misuse of the criminal justice system and

learned trial court committed an error in law in not summoning the offending company

named in the F.I.R. and issuing process against the directors. It is submitted that there

was no mensrea, that is, intention to deceive and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by a

non-speaking order summoned the petitioner.

2. I consider that the present petition is a gross misuse of Section 482 Cr.P.C. At the

time of taking cognizance of the offence, the trial court is not supposed to give reasons

for taking cognizance. The offences for which the cognizance was taken by the trial court

in this case are warrant trial offences and soon after taking cognizance, the process of

hearing accused on charge is to be adopted by the trial court. It is at that stage that the

trial court has to consider whether a charge was made out against the accused and he is to

be put to trial or not. At the stage of framing charge, the trial court is supposed to hear

the accused and take into account the charge sheet and other evidence collected by

prosecution and pass a speaking order as to why he considered that the accused was to be

put to trial.

3. I, therefore, consider that the present petition was not maintainable and the

accused should have argued on charge before the trial court.

4. The petition is hereby dismissed.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA [JUDGE] JULY 30, 2010 'AA'