Delhi High Court
Pradeep Kumar Bajaj vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 August, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th August, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 3155/2015
PRADEEP KUMAR BAJAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.C.Kharbanda &
Mr.T.N.Saxena, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% (O R A L)
Petitioner is an accused in FIR No.624/1998 for the offence
of cheating registered at Connaught Place, New Delhi and his
application for discharge is rejected by trial court vide order of 8 th
August, 2012, which stands affirmed by the revisional court vide
impugned order of 31st March, 2015.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submits that
there is no criminality and the facts giving rise to the FIR in
question are of purely civil nature and petitioner is ready to refund
the balance amount of `50 lac. It is submitted that petitioner has
already refunded an amount of `36 lac out of the total amount of
`50 lac received by him and is ready to return the remaining
Crl.M.C.No.3155/2015 Page 1
amount of `14 lacs as well. For this purpose, let petitioner
approach trial court with an application for compounding of the
offence in question. So far as challenge to the impugned order on
merits is concerned, I find that petitioner has an alternate and
efficacious remedy available to urge the pleas taken herein at the
stage of framing of charge.
Such a course is being adopted in view of dictum of Apex
Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Alias Ramu v. Kovvuri
Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, which is as
under: -
"It is well settled that the inherent powers under
Section 482 can be exercised only when no other
remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation
where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It
cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific
provisions provided under the Code (vide Kavita v.
State and B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana). If an effective
alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not
exercise its powers under this section, specifically
when the applicant may not have availed of that
remedy."
Applying the dictum of the Apex Court in Padal Venkata
Rama Reddy (supra) as referred to hereinabove, this petition is
disposed of with liberty to petitioner to urge the pleas taken herein
before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of charge
and if it is so done, then trial court shall deal with the pleas raised
herein by passing a speaking and reasoned order. In case of
eventuality of offence in question being not compounded, it is
Crl.M.C.No.3155/2015 Page 2
made clear that trial court shall decide whether petitioner has to be
put on trial after hearing the arguments on charge uninfluenced by
the impugned orders. Needless to say, if trial court chooses to
frame charges against petitioner, then petitioner shall be at liberty
to avail of the remedy as available in law, if so advised.
This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of
while refraining to comment upon merits, lest it may prejudice
petitioner before trial court.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 07, 2015
vn
Crl.M.C.No.3155/2015 Page 3
