Amit Mittal vs State ( Gnct Of Delhi) & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 8883 Del

$
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                            RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 24, 2015
                            DECIDED ON : NOVEMBER 30, 2015

+             CRL.M.C. 3474/2015 & CRL.M.A.No.12409/15
       AMIT MITTAL                                   ..... Petitioner
                            Through :   Mr.Deepak Vohra, Advocate.
                            versus
       STATE ( GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR                 ..... Respondents
                            Through :   Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP with
                                        SI Prateek Saxena, PS Anand
                                        Vihar.
                                        Mr.R.Venkat Raman, Advocate for
                                        R2.

+             CRL.M.C. 3469/2015 & CRL.M.A.No.12403/15

       ATUL GUPTA                                       ..... Petitioner
                            Through :   Mr.Abhinav Agnihotri, Advocate.

                            versus

       STATE ( GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR               ..... Respondents
                     Through : Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP with
                               SI Prateek Saxena, PS Anand
                               Vihar.
                               Mr.R.Venkat Raman, Advocate for
                               R2.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG



Crl.M.C.3474/15 & 3469/15                                    Page 1 of 4
 S.P.GARG, J.

1. The instant petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been

preferred by the petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of the

procedure adopted by the learned Trial Court to frame charges against

them vide order dated 18.08.2015. Prayer has been made to quash/set

aside the entire proceedings undertaken by the Trial court in case FIR

No.376/2012 under Sections 506/509/34 IPC registered at Police Station

Anand Vihar on the Protest Petition filed by Respondent No.2 and to

direct the Trial court to decide it (Protest Petition) first. Petitions are

contested by the respondents.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file. The facts are not in dispute. Case FIR No.376/2012

Police Station Anand Vihar was registered on respondent No.2's

complaint on 31.12.2012. Upon completion of investigations, a charge-

sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the petitioners for

commission of offences punishable under Sections 506/509/34 IPC. The

Trial Court vide order dated 26.04.2013 took cognizance and admitted the

petitioners on regular bail.

3. It is a matter of record that respondent No.2 filed Protest

Petition dated 21.08.2013 before the Trial Court on 02.09.2013 which was

taken up with the file on the date fixed i.e.24.10.2013. In the Protest

Petition, the complainant/respondent No.2 alleged that the investigation

carried out by the investigating agency was faulty and incomplete. The

charges were not filed under proper offences/sections and all the

perpetrators of the crime were not charge-sheeted. Prayer was made to

direct the Investigating Officer to 'reinvestigate' the matter and file

supplementary charge-sheet. The Protest Petition is contested by the

petitioners.

Perusal of the Trial Court record reveals that the said Protest

Petition has not yet been decided/disposed of. On various dates

subsequent to the filing of the Protest Petition, certain inquiries were

conducted; the Investigating Officers were summoned and their

statements were recorded; Principal of the institute (Ideal Institute of

Management and Technology) was summoned and directed to place on

record the layout plan of CCTV cameras installed in the institute. Without

taking any view on the Protest Petition, the Trial Court framed charges

against the petitioners vide order dated 18.08.2015. By the said order,

objections taken by the complainant were noted separately and the

concerned SHO was directed to file reply/response to them.

4. Apparently, the procedure adopted by the Trial Court to

proceed on merits with the trial after framing charge while keeping the

Protest Petition pending is not permissible. The Trial Court before

framing the charge in question must have decided/disposed of the Protest

Petition on merits. Any order on Protest Petition would have impact on

merits of the case. Petitioners' prayer to direct the Trial Court to dispose

of the respondent No.2's Protest Petition first has merits.

5. In view of the above, without delving into controversies

raised in the instant petitions, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of

Respondent No.2's Protest Petition first and not to proceed with the trial

till then. The parties will be at liberty to avail legal remedies available to

them after disposal of the Protest Petition on merits.

6. The Petitions filed by the petitioners stand disposed of in the

above terms. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith along with the

copy of the order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE NOVEMBER 30, 2015 sa