Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Manmohan, J.
Maharaji Educational Trust
and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Housing Urban Development Corporation
Ltd. —Respondent
Cri MC No. 3685 of 2012
Decided on 18.10.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitoner:J.S. Bhasin, Advocate with Rashmi Priya Advocate.
For the Respondent:A.K. Singh, Advocate with Garud M.V. Advocate.
Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881— Section 138—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Dishonour of cheque—Application for compounding offence on plea that cheque amount was paid to complainant dismissed by Magistrate on ground that complainant did not consented for compounding—Whether order impugned suffered illegality?
Held: This Court has been informed by learned counsel for respondent HUDCO that DRAT has passed a decree in excess of Rs. 324 crores against the petitioner which has attained finality. Learned counsel for respondent HUDCO states that even after the cheque amount of Rs, 11.90 crores had been deposited, the Supreme Court had dismissed the petitioner’s Special Leave petition challenging the summoning order.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that Section 482 Cr.P.C. power has to be exercised by the Court only to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
In the present case, since admittedly even the principal debt of a Public Sector Undertaking has not been paid despite lapse of more than sixteen years, this Court is of the view that the present petition should not be entertained in exercise of its inherent power.
This Court is also in agreement with the view of the trial Court that no compounding can take place without the consent of respondent company.
Moreover, as the Supreme Court has already dismissed the petitioner’s Special Leave petition seeking quashing of summoning order on the same ground of repayment, this Court is of the view that present petition amounts to re-litigation. (Paras 4 to 8)
Crl. M.A. 18024/2012 (exemption) in Crl. M.C. 3685/2012
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.C. 3685/2012 and Crl. M.A. 18023/2012
Manmohan, J.— Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by respondent and for setting aside the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order dated 9th May, 2012 whereby the petitioner’s application for compounding of offence was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated ‘the relevant facts of the present case are that petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 75 crores from a Public Sector Undertaking, namely, Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘HUDCO’ in the year 1996. Till date the principal sum has not been paid by the petitioner to respondent HUDCO.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the cheque in question had only been issued for a sum of Rs. 11.90 crores. He points out that the cheque amount has now been deposited with the trial Court and since the said sum has been withdrawn by respondent HUDCO, the trial Court has committed an error in not compounding the matter.
4. This Court has been informed by learned counsel for respondent HUDCO that DRAT has passed a decree in excess of Rs. 324 crores against the petitioner which has attained finality. Learned counsel for respondent HUDCO states that even after the cheque amount of Rs, 11.90 crores had been deposited, the Supreme Court had dismissed the petitioner’s Special Leave petition challenging the summoning order.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that Section 482 Cr.P.C. power has to be exercised by the Court only to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
6. In the present case, since admittedly even the principal debt of a Public Sector Undertaking has not been paid despite lapse of more than sixteen years, this Court is of the view that the present petition should not be entertained in exercise of its inherent power.
7. This Court is also in agreement with the view of the trial Court that no compounding can take place without the consent of respondent company.
8. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has already dismissed the petitioner’s Special Leave petition seeking quashing of summoning order on the same ground of repayment, this Court is of the view that present petition amounts to re-litigation.
9. Accordingly, present petition and pending application are dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000 to be paid to the Delhi Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks.
Petition dismissed.
*******
