High Court of DelhiCRL.M.C./1071/2015

Nanik Ram Chandwani & ANR v. State & ANR

2015-03-18Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sunil Gaur2 pages

* 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.1State 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

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.