Delhi High Court
Satpal vs Alaknanda Properties P. Ltd. on 13 May, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: April 13, 2015
Pronounced on: May 13, 2015
+ (i) CRL.M.C. 4445/2013 & Crl.M.A.15907/2013
DAULAT RAM GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate
versus
ALAKNANDA PROPERTIES P. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Advocate
+ (ii) CRL.M.C. 4446/2013 & Crl.M.A.15911/2013
RAJMAL GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate
versus
ALAKNANDA PROPERTIES P. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Advocate
+ (iii) CRL.M.C. 4447/2013
JAI PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate
versus
ALAKNANDA PROPERTIES P. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Advocate
Crl.M.Cs.No.4445-47, 4886-92 of 13 Page 1 of 10
+ (iv) CRL.M.C. 4886/2013 & Crl.M.A.17585/2013
RAMESH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate
versus
ALAKNANDA PROPERTIES P. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Advocate
+ (v) CRL.M.C. 4887/2013 & Crl.M.A.17588/2013
BHARAM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate
versus
ALAKNANDA PROPERTIES P. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Advocate
+ (vi) CRL.M.C. 4888/2013 & Crl.M.A.17593/2013
BRIJ LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate
versus
ALAKNANDA PROPERTIES P. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Advocate
+ (vii) CRL.M.C. 4889/2013 & Crl.M.A.17595/2013
SATPAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate
Crl.M.Cs.No.4445-47, 4886-92 of 13 Page 2 of 10
versus
ALAKNANDA PROPERTIES P. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Advocate
+ (viii) CRL.M.C. 4890/2013 & Crl.M.A17597/2013
KRISHNA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate
versus
ALAKNANDA PROPERTIES P. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Advocate
+ (ix) CRL.M.C. 4891/2013 & Crl.M.A.17602/2013
DHARAM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate
versus
ALAKNANDA PROPERTIES P. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Advocate
+ (x) CRL.M.C. 4892/2013 & Crl.M.A.17604/2013
VIRENDER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate
versus
ALAKNANDA PROPERTIES P. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Advocate
Crl.M.Cs.No.4445-47, 4886-92 of 13 Page 3 of 10
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
1. The above-captioned ten petitions have been preferred by
petitioners-Daulat Ram Gupta (A-72), Rajmal Gupta (A-73), Jai Pal
Singh (A-53), Ramesh (A-75), Bharam Singh (A-27), Brij Lal (A-34),
Satpal (A-83), Krishna (A-61), Dharam Singh (A-36) and Virender (A-98)
[accused numbers as provided by the trial court]. In the above-captioned
ten petitions, quashing of complaint under Sections 192/218/383/386/405/
409/420/423/425/426/427/441/447/451/463/468/503/506 of the IPC read
with Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 34 of the IPC is sought on the
ground that there are no averments against petitioners, who are
subsequent purchasers of the land in question and also on the ground that
these criminal proceedings are lingering on for the last 13 years, but still
are at the stage of pre-charge evidence.
2. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners had submitted that
these ten petitions arise out of the aforesaid complaint titled Alaknanda
Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Balbir and Ors. (Annexure P-1) and continuance
of criminal proceedings in respect of the complaint (Annexure P-1) is an
abuse of the process of the court because the ingredients of the offence
alleged are not made out against petitioners and on the subject matter of
the instant criminal complaint, a civil suit (Annexure P-4) is also pending
since the year 2001.
3. Quashing of the aforesaid complaint is sought by learned counsel
for petitioners while relying upon a decision of a coordinate Bench of this
Court in CRL.M.C.4890/2005 titled Hitesh Bhardwaj v. Alaknanda
Properties Pvt. Ltd. rendered on 1st October, 2007 whereby the complaint
in question stands quashed qua co-accused-Hitesh Bhardwaj. Reliance
was also placed upon another decision of a coordinate Bench of this
Court in Ramesh Kumari & Anr. v. Alaknanda Properties (P) Ltd. 2010
SCC Online Del 4425 wherein this very complaint qua co-accused-
Ramesh Kumari and another already stands quashed on the ground of
there being no specific averments against aforesaid co-accused. So, it was
submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that on parity basis, the
complaint in question deserves to be quashed qua petitioners as assertions
against petitioners are quite vague in the pre-summoning evidence,
whereas in the complaint in question, there are no specific averments
against petitioners.
4. Lastly, it was submitted that there is no reasonable probability of
the complaint in question reaching to a logical conclusion because the
proceedings arising out of the complaint in question are moving at a
snail's pace and already thirteen years have been lapsed and so,
continuance of proceedings arising out of the complaint in question is
nothing, but clear abuse of process of the court.
5. Learned counsel for respondent-complainant supports the
impugned summoning order of 7th August, 2001 vide which petitioners
have been summoned as accused persons for the offences under Sections
418/420/423 of IPC read with Section 120-B of IPC and Section 506
(Part-II) of IPC and it was submitted that mere pendency of a civil suit is
no bar to continuance of the proceedings arising out of the complaint in
question because there are allegations against petitioners of conspiring
with their co-accused persons to commit the offences in question. Thus, it
was submitted that the decisions relied upon by petitioners are of no avail
as there are categorical assertions against petitioners in the complaint in
question.
6. It was submitted that petitioners were aware that the land which
they purchased was exclusively owned by respondent-complainant and
since there are serious allegations against petitioners, so the complaint in
question does not deserve to be quashed qua petitioners and infact, these
petitions are premature. It was pointed out that similar petitions filed
earlier by petitioners were dismissed in default and so, these petitions are
not legally maintainable. Otherwise also, it was submitted that the case is
at the pre-charge evidence and so, these petitions should not be
entertained at this stage because petitioners will have an efficacious
remedy to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of
hearing on the point of charge.
7. On the aspect of delayed trial, the pertinent observations of the
Apex Court in Ranjan Dwivedi v. CBI, (2012) 8 SCC 495 are as under: -
"The Magistrate had taken cognizance vide its order
dated 16-8-1999 and issued process. The accused approached
the High Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings on the
ground of delay. The High Court quashed the proceedings on
the ground of unnecessary delay of 12 years. The prosecution
approached this Court against the order of the High Court.
This Court while setting aside the order of the High Court
remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal after
considering all the relevant factors including that the criminal
courts are not obliged to terminate trial of criminal
proceedings merely on account of lapse of time. This Court has
observed, that, while considering the issue of delay in trial
there are some relevant factors which ought to be taken into
consideration by the court such as, whether the prolongation
was on account of any delaying tactics adopted by the accused
and other relevant aspects which contributed to the delay,
number of witnesses examined, volume of documents likely to
be exhibited, nature and complexity of the offence which is
under investigation or adjudication. There can be no empirical
formula of universal application in such matters. Each case has
to be judged in its own background and special features, if any.
No generalisation is possible and should be done."
8. After having heard both the sides and on perusal of the complaint
in question, pre-summoning evidence, the impugned summoning order,
the material on record and the decisions cited, I do find that the criminal
proceedings arising out of the complaint in question are lingering on for
the last more than one decade and the case is still at the stage of pre-
charge evidence. The obvious reason is that there are 104 accused persons
in the complaint in question. There are allegations of petitioners
criminally conspiring with their co-accused in committing the offences
for which petitioners have been summoned. No doubt, two coordinate
Benches of this Court have meticulously gone through the averments in
the complaint in question and the pre-summoning evidence and have
chosen to quash the criminal proceedings qua co-accused Hitesh
Bhardwaj and Ramesh Kumari and another, but so far as petitioners
herein are concerned, I do find that their names figure in the complaint in
question.
9. What exact role was played by which of petitioners, is not clearly
spelt out in the complaint in question and in the pre-summoning evidence,
there are general allegations against petitioners. However, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the case of petitioners is not at par with the
case of co-accused persons-Hitesh Bhardwaj and Ramesh Kumari and
another because the conspiracy angle was not considered while quashing
the criminal proceedings against co-accused persons. Such a view is
being taken because it is well-known that in the case of criminal
conspiracy, direct evidence is seldom available. In any case, in the
exercise of extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to delve deep into the facts and to
piecemeal appreciate the respective submissions of the parties when the
case is still at the pre-charge evidence stage.
10. 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 Venkata Rama Reddy Alias Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana
Reddy & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437 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."
11. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not
inclined to pre-judge the pre-summoning evidence particularly when
petitioners-accused persons have an opportunity to cross-examine
respondent-complainant at the stage of recording of pre-charge evidence.
A much clearer picture would emerge after the cross-examination of
respondent-complainant is concluded. So, let the trial court make all
endeavours to conclude the hearing on the point of charge within a period
of sixteen weeks. To avoid any unnecessary inconvenience to petitioners,
who have already faced the criminal proceedings for the last thirteen
years, they are exempted from personally appearing before the trial court
till the arguments on charge are concluded, subject to their filing an
application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. alongwith their affidavit with
the following undertaking: -
a. that the proceedings of the case shall be regularly
conducted by counsel (whose name shall be disclosed in
application), who shall appear on behalf of petitioners on
every hearing and will not seek adjournment;
b. that petitioners shall not dispute their identity as accused
in the case;
c. that the petitioners shall appear in person as and when
directed in future to do so; and
d. that petitioners shall not raise the question of prejudice in
future.
12. Without commenting upon merits of this case, the above-captioned
ten petitions and the applications are disposed of with liberty to
petitioners to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage
of hearing on the point of charge.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 13, 2015
s
