Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2010 DHC 3754
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Acts
  • Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2010 DHC 3754
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Acts
  • Section 482 Cr.P.C.
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    BHUSHAN KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE & ANR.

    * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Criminal M.C. No.3376 of 2009 & C.M. Appl. No.11398 of 2009 % 30.07.2010

    BHUSHAN KUMAR & ANR. …... Petitioners

    Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Mr. Shishir Mathur, Mr. Ritesh Thusu, Mr. N.K. Bhardwaj and Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocates.

    Versus

    STATE & ANR. …...Respondents

    Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the State with Inspector Mohinder Singh, P.S. Okhla Industrial Area.

    Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate for R-2. Reserved on: 8thJuly, 2010

    Pronounced on: 30thJuly, 2010

    JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

    1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

    2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

    3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

    J U D G M E N T

    1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside order dated 16thJanuary, 2009 passed by the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate and to quash the proceedings initiated therein under F.I.R. No.290 of 2002 registered under Section

    420 IPC at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area. The order dated 16thJanuary, 2009 shows that after receiving charge sheet in case F.I.R. No.290 of 2002, the court took cognizance of the offence and directed for summoning the accused through Investigating Officer for 20thJuly, 2009. Quashing is sought on the ground that the F.I.R. and the proceedings initiated there under was a gross misuse of the criminal justice system and learned trial court committed an error in law in not summoning the offending company

    1

    named in the F.I.R. and issuing process against the directors. It is submitted that there was no mensrea, that is, intention to deceive and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by a non-speaking order summoned the petitioners.

    2. I consider that the present petition is a gross misuse of Section 482 Cr.P.C. At the time of taking cognizance of the offence, the trial court is not supposed to give reasons for taking cognizance. The offences for which the cognizance was taken by the trial court in this case are warrant trial offences and soon after taking cognizance, the process of hearing accused on charge is to be adopted by the trial court. It is at that stage that the trial court has to consider whether a charge was made out against the accused and he is to be put to trial or not. At the stage of framing charge, the trial court is supposed to hear the accused and take into account the charge sheet and other evidence collected by prosecution and pass a speaking order as to why he considered that the accused was to be put to trial.

    3. I, therefore, consider that the present petition was not maintainable and the accused should have argued on charge before the trial court.

    4. The petition is hereby dismissed.

    SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

    [JUDGE]

    JULY 30, 2010

    'AA'

    2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    BHUSHAN KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE & ANR.
    (Jul 30, 2010)