Delhi High Court
Mohd. Naved Yar Khan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 21 November, 2014
Author: V.P.Vaish
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No. 4165/2014
Date of decision: 21st November, 2014
MOHD. NAVED YAR KHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ranjan Roy, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogesh Verma, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') the petitioner has
assailed the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by learned Additional
Session Judge (Central-5), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi whereby criminal
revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. In nutshell, the facts of the present case are that a Kalandra
under Sections 28/112 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 vide DD No. 28 dated
08.12.2006 registered at P.S. Chandni Chowk was issued against the
petitioner for running guest house without a licence. Thereafter, the
petitioner moved an application under Section 258 Cr.P.C. to stop the
proceedings. The said application was dismissed by learned trial court
vide order dated 20.01.2014.
3. Against the order dated 20.01.2014, the petitioner filed Criminal
Revision No.44/2014 which was dismissed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 09.07.2014.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that an application for
grant of licence for running guest house on 18.10.2002 along with the
requisite documents were submitted. Thereafter, the petitioner
received a letter dated 04.10.2006 from DHO, City Zone, MCD
wherein it was acknowledged that the documents were submitted by
the petitioner. He further submits that copy of letter dated 04.10.2006
was delivered to the concerned police station.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the
petitioner has already closed the guest house and has withdrawn the
application for grant of licence to run the guest house. Therefore, no
useful purpose would be served if the proceedings are continued.
6. At this juncture, it is relevant to reproduce the provisions of
Section 258 of Cr.P.C.-
"Power to stop proceedings in certain cases - In any
summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint,
a Magistrate of the first class or with the previous
sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other
Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by
him, stop the proceedings at any stage without
pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of
proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal
witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of
acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and
such release shall have the effect of discharge."
7. The powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very
wide, however, it has to be used sparingly and cautiously and to
prevent abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
8. In the instant case, the application under Section 258 Cr.P.C.
was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that notice has already
been framed and the matter is at the stage of prosecution evidence.
The petitioner filed criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi which was dismissed vide
impugned order dated 09.07.2014. The petitioner cannot be allowed to
urge the same point before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Moreover, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case of
abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.
9. The present petition is without any merit and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Crl.M.A. 14309/2014
The application is dismissed as infructuous.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
November 21, 2014
nk
