Delhi High Court
Savita Kumari Gupta & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 29 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 29, 2015
+ (i) CRL.M.C. 5281/2013 & Crl.M.A.No. 19080/2013
SAVITA KUMARI GUPTA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Ms. Rebecca M.John, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Bhavook Chauhan & Mr.
Harsh Bora, Advocates
Versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State
Mr. Vijay Aggarwal & Ms.
Chaitali Jain, Advocates for
Respondent No.2
+ (ii) CRL.M.C. 5285/2013 & Crl.M.A.No. 19092/2013
DEVENDER KUMAR GUPTA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Ms. Rebecca M.John, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Bhavook Chauhan &
Mr. Harsh Bora, Advocates
Versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State
Mr. Vijay Aggarwal & Ms.
Chaitali Jain, Advocates for
Respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
CRL.M.Cs. 5281 & 5282 of 2013 Page 1
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Since the challenge to the impugned order of 4th June, 2013 is on
identical grounds in the above captioned two petitions, therefore, with the
consent of both the sides, these two petitions were heard together and are
being disposed of by this common judgment.
Application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.PC by respondent No.2
stood dismissed by Trial Court but Revisional Court vide impugned order
of 4th June, 2013 has allowed the aforesaid two applications and has
directed registration of FIR. In pursuance to the impugned order, FIR
No. 195/2013 under Section 420/120-B/IPC has been registered at Police
Station, Pahar Ganj, Central District, Delhi. It is the case of the
petitioners that impugned order has been passed without any notice to
them and as soon as they had come to know about the registration of the
aforesaid FIR, they have come up with these petitions to seek quashing of
the impugned order.
At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioners had placed
reliance upon Apex Court decision in Raghu Raj Singh Rousha vs.
Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited and Another (2009) 2
Supreme Court Cases 363 to submit that impugned order is illegal in the
face of it and it has been passed without affording an opportunity of
hearing to the two petitioners. Thus, quashing of the impugned order is
sought.
Learned counsel for second respondent relies upon Single Bench
decisions of Allahabad High Court in Vijay Bahadur Pandey vs. State of
CRL.M.Cs. 5281 & 5282 of 2013 Page 2
U.P. & Others 2005 (5) CRJ 647 and Hira Lal vs. State of U.P. and Anr.
2008 CRI.L.J. 113 to submit that once the FIR has been registered then
the challenge has to be laid to the FIR and by merely seeking setting aside
of the impugned order, the FIR cannot be quashed.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the impugned order,
the material on record and the decisions cited, I find that the question of
prejudice is not required to be gone into and affording an opportunity of
hearing to the party against whom the order has been passed, is
mandatory. Reliance placed by learned counsel for respondents upon
decisions in Vijay Bahadur and Hira Lal (Supra) is entirely misplaced as
the registration of a FIR in instant case is a consequential action taken in
pursuance to the impugned order and once the impugned order is
rendered unsustainable, then the FIR cannot proceed further. Pertinently,
no decision contrary to decision of Apex Court in Raghu Raj (Supra) is
cited nor any attempt was made by learned counsel for respondent No.2
to distinguish the Apex Court's decision in Raghu Raj (Supra).
By applying the dictum of the Apex Court's decision in Raghu Raj
(Supra) to the facts of the instant case, impugned order dated 4th June,
2013 is quashed with direction to the Revisional Court to afford an
opportunity of hearing to petitioners and thereafter to decide the Revision
Petition of respondent No.2 on merits.
Let the Revisional Court decide the Revision Petition expeditiously
i.e. in any case on or before 15th May, 2015. Parties to appear before the
concerned Revisional Court on 6th February, 2015 and thereafter the
Revisional Court shall fix a date of effective hearing.
CRL.M.Cs. 5281 & 5282 of 2013 Page 3
In the peculiarity of this case, it is directed that the proceedings
arising out of the FIR in question be kept in abeyance till 15 th May, 2015.
It goes without saying that in event of petitioners succeeding in the
revision petition, the FIR so registered in pursuance of impugned order
shall stand quashed.
With the aforesaid directions, both these petitions and the
applications are disposed of while refraining to comment upon the merits
of the case.
DASTI.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 29, 2015
mw
CRL.M.Cs. 5281 & 5282 of 2013 Page 4
