Nanik Ram Chandwani & Anr. vs State & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2322 Del

    * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    Date of Decision: March 18, 2015

+     CRL.M.C. 1071/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.3998-3999/2015
      NANIK RAM CHANDWANI & ANR.             ..... Petitioners
                  Through: Mr. Harish Pandey, Advocate

                           versus

      STATE & ANR.                                        ..... Respondents
                           Through:      Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
                                         Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
                                         State with ASI Dharamvir

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

FIR No.24/2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Crime Against Women Cell, New Delhi as well impugned order of 30th April, 2014 is sought to be quashed in this petition on merits.

Ms. Nishi Jain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that charge sheet in this case has been already filed and now the matter is coming up on 30th April, 2015 before the trial court for hearing on the point of framing of charge and that petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of charge.

On this aspect, pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Padal

Crl.M.C.No.1071/2015 Page 1 Venkata Rama Reddy Alias Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, are as under: -

"13. 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 above-cited decision of Apex Court to the facts of this case, this Court finds that since petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy available, therefore, this petition and applications are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to raise the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of charge.

Needless to say that this Court has not considered the case of the parties on merits and it is left open for the trial court to do so.

                                                            (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                              JUDGE

MARCH 18, 2015
r




Crl.M.C.No.1071/2015                                                     Page 2