Delhi High Court
Jai Kishan & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 11 February, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: February 11, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 470/2015
JAI KISHAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Parveen Bhati, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Mehrab Alam
+ CRL.M.C. 4006/2012 & Crl.M.A.19138/2012
SHOBHA RAM SHARMA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Counsel (appearance not given)
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Parveen Bhati, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Mehrab Alam
Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Advocate for
respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR No.126/09
under Section 323/324/325/308/452/506/34 IPC registered at Police
Crl.M.C.Nos.470/2015 & 4006/2012 Page 1
Station Khajuri Khas, Delhi and FIR No.128/2011 under Section
323/325/325/308/452/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sonia
Vihar, Delhi is sought on merits. With the consent of both the sides,
these two petitioners were heard together and are being disposed of by
this common judgment.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State has
submitted that the charge-sheets in these two FIR cases have been filed
and petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy available to him
to raise the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the charge stage.
Upon hearing and on perusal of two FIRs in question, this Court
finds that petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy available
to them. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to relegate petitioners to trial
court to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of
hearing on the point of charge. Such a view is taken 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 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 Apex Court in Padal Venkata
Rama Reddy (supra) to the instant case, this Court is not inclined to
Crl.M.C.Nos.470/2015 & 4006/2012 Page 2
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
FIRs in question.
Accordingly, the petitions and application are disposed of with
aforesaid liberty to petitioners and without commenting upon merits of
this case, lest it may prejudice petitioners before trial court.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 11, 2015
vn
Crl.M.C.Nos.470/2015 & 4006/2012 Page 3
