Full Judgment Text
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 21, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 3338/2015
PREETPAL SINGH WADHWA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur & Mr. Sanjay
Srivastava, Advocates
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satish Narayan, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Jagjit Sangwan
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. No.11927/2015 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 3338/2015 & Crl.M.A. No.11928/2015 (Stay)
Received on transfer.
In this petition, quashing of FIR No.523/2013, registered at police
station Vikas Puri, Delhi in which charge-Sheet for the offence under
Section 3(1) (x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed, is sought on merits.
Crl.M.C.3338/15 Page 1
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that no offence under the
aforesaid Act is made out as petitioner-accused did not know that the
complainant was a scheduled caste and there are lots of improvements
made in the prosecution version in this case. To submit so, learned
counsel for petitioners places reliance upon decisions in Mukesh Kumar
Saini and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration) 2001 Crl. L.J., Smt. Deepa
Bajwa v. State & Ors. 2004 [3] JCC 1754 and Writ Petition (Crl.)
th
N.1593/2006 titled Ahwani Kumar v. State & Anr. rendered on 9
January, 2009.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
th
State submits that the matter is coming up on 24 August, 2015 before
the trial court for appearance of petitioners and that charge in this case
has not yet been framed 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
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."
Crl.M.C.3338/15 Page 2
Applying the above-noted dictum of Apex Court to the facts of the
instant case, this Court finds that since petitioner has an alternate and
efficacious remedy available, therefore, this petition and application 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.
During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this
Court that to secure the presence of petitioner-accused, non-bailable
warrants have been issued against him.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
that petitioner's anticipatory bail has been already rejected by Sessions
st
Court on 31 July, 2015 as there is no provision to grant anticipatory bail
under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Learned counsel for petitioner maintains that this case is not
covered by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 as the necessary ingredients of the alleged offence
are lacking. This is an aspect which goes to the root of the matter which is
required to be considered while hearing petitioners at the framing of
charge. In case petitioners choose to seek pre-arrest bail from this Court
while maintaining that the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not attracted in
the instant case, then this aspect is also required to be considered in the
said application. However, no case for invoking extraordinary inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of this Court is made out in this
Crl.M.C.3338/15 Page 3
petition, which is pre-mature.
With aforesaid observations, this petition and application are
disposed of while leaving it open for the trial court to consider the case of
petitioners on merits and with liberty to petitioner to seek pre-arrest bail
from this Court.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 21, 2015
r/s
Crl.M.C.3338/15 Page 4