Delhi High Court
S C Aggarwal vs Geeta Flexo Grevure Ltd. & Ors. on 31 August, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
I-11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 31, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 3456/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.12661/2013
S C AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman,
Advocate
versus
GEETA FLEXO GREVURE LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amar Khera & Mr. Pulkit
Narang, Advocates for respondent
No.2
Mr. Nikhil Singla, Advocate for
respondent No.3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of criminal complaint No.3280/1/2006, M/S Geeta Flexo
Grevure Ltd. & ors. Vs. S.C.Aggarwal, wherein petitioner has been
summoned for offences under Sections 409/467/468/471 of IPC, is sought
in this petition on merits.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner relies upon Apex
Court's decisions in M/S GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. M/S
India Infoline Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 1433; Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of
Gujarat & ors. (2008) 5 SCC 668; M/S Thermax Ltd. & ors. Vs. K.M.
Johny & ors. 2011 (11) SCALE 128 and decision of 30th September, 2011
Crl.M.C.No. 3456/2013 Page 1
of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.M.C.1659/2010 S.V.
Arumugam Vs. State & ors. to submit that prima facie case for
summoning petitioner for the offences in question is not made out and so,
complaint as well as impugned summoning order of 5th February, 2013
deserve to be quashed.
During the course of hearing, this Court was informed that
recording of pre-charge evidence is in progress.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the complaint in question,
summoning order, material on record and decisions cited, I find that the
pleas taken in this petition, on the basis of which quashing of complaint
and summoning order is sought, are factual ones which are required to
be tested during the course of recording of pre-charge evidence.
Since petitioner has an effective remedy to get the pleas taken
herein tested during the course of recording of pre-charge evidence,
therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage
in view of pertinent observations of Apex Court in Padal Venkata Rama
Reddy Alias Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12
SCC 437, which are 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
Crl.M.C.No. 3456/2013 Page 2
High Court will not exercise its powers under this section,
specifically when the applicant may not have availed of that
remedy."
Applying the afore-noted dictum of the Apex Court in Padal
Venkata Rama Reddy (supra) to facts of the instant case, this petition and
application are 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 order.
If the trial court finds that no case is made out against petitioner,
then this order will not stand in the way of trial court to discharge
petitioner. 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. It is made clear that this Court has not
considered the merits of this case and it is left open for the trial court to
do so after considering the pleas raised by petitioners in this petition.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
August 31, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No. 3456/2013 Page 3
