Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Morchana Oriental Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 3538 of 2021
Decided On : 24-12-2021
Criminal Procedure Code - Stay of Impugned Order - Section 156(3) - Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC, Raisa Begum vs. State, 2015 SCC Del 10078, Abhay Nath Dubey VS. State of Delhi & Ors., 2002 SCC Del 570, Priya Gupta vs. The State, MANU/DE/7565/2007
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 21.12.2021 of the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CR No. 360/2021, which stayed the operation of the order dated 18.12.2021 of the learned ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order lacked reasoning, but emphasized the need for reasoned orders in the decision-making process. It directed the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03 to dispose of the petition by a specified date and to pass any further extension of the stay order with a reasoned order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the lack of reasoning in the impugned order and the need for a reasoned decision-making process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing reasons in the decision-making process, citing relevant legal precedents. It directed the lower court to pass a reasoned order and dispose of the petition by a specified date.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, with directions to the lower court to dispose of the petition by a specified date and to pass any further extension of the stay order with a reasoned order.
ORDER
Crl.M.A. No.20970/2021
1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Crl.M.C. No. 3538/2021 and Crl.M.A. No.20969/2021
2. The petitioner vide the present petition assails the impugned order dated 21.12.2021 of the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CR No. 360/2021.
3. Vide the said order, notice of the revision petition was directed to be issued to the respondent thereto i.e., the present petitioner, on taking of steps within 7 days for 24.1.2022 with it having been directed that the impugned order was stayed till the next date of hearing. The proceedings dated 21.12.2021 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, New Delhi are to the effect:
"21.12.2021
Fresh revision petition received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: Sh. Gaurav Arora and Ms. Yogayta, Ld. Counsels for the revisionist.
Heard.
Notice of the revision petition be issued to the respondent on filing of PF/RC for 24.01.2022.
Steps be taken within seven days.
Impugned order is stayed till the next date of hearing.
At request a copy of this order be given dasti.
A copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court. TCR be summoned two days prior to the next date of hearing."
4. The order apparently as impugned before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, New Delhi, is the order dated 18.12.2021 of the Court of the learned ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CC No. 9425/2021 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, whereby it was observed inter alia to the effect:
"4. I have heard contentions on the pat of complainant and have carefully perused the record as well as gone through judgments relied upon. It is the contention of complainant that they got to know about forged documents on receipt of demand notice on 29.10.2020. As per report of 10, in his complaint, Kapil Gupta had not claimed his signatures to the forged and that said complaint was of civil nature. Copy of complaint is Annexure 'A' with report of 10. Said complaint is undated, however, as per report of 10, said complaint was received on 12.09.2019. Said complaint does not refer to documents, which complainant states to have come to know of on 29.10.2020. Thus, clearly said complaint pre-dates to knowledge of any forged documents and in such scenario, anyone cannot be expected to say anything about facts unknown. Further, it is also reported by 10 that on documents in question, another AR of complainant has accepted that documents were signed by Kapil Gupta. Said second complainant is Annexure-B. The alleged documents are Addendum agreement dated 26.06.2018 and Letter/Agreement dated 31.01.2019. However, said complaint, which is Annexure B of report of 10, does not refers to their two documents. Said complaint refers to consultancy agreement with M/s. TAV whereas as stated by complainant in complaint, along with demand notice, Letter/Agreement is purported is executed by the Galaxies Production. Sum and substance of controversy is that there are allegations of cheating as well as forging the documents and using them. These allegations made in complaint does show commission of cognizable offence. To adjudicate upon 156(3), court is required to see if any field investigation is required. Above discussion shows that documents in question are required to be looked into and probed. For the said probe, analysis of hand-writring is required. One of the parameter to assess requirement of field investigation is whether or not evidence is within reach of complainant. For analysis of documents, original documents are required which are stated to be in custody of alleged. Thus, it cannot be said that entire evidence is within control of complainant. For recovery of such original documents so that they may be analysed to reach at truth in the matter, filed investigation is required. Hence, in view of above discussion, application u/s. 156(3) Cr.PC is disposed of as being allowed. Copy of this order be sent to SHO/In-charge, PS E
The main legal point established is the importance of providing reasoned orders in the decision-making process, as it facilitates the consideration of the application of mind at the time of passing a....
The complainant's right to seek further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should not be misused by filing repeated applications without fresh material, and t....
It is the duty of a Judge to sustain the judicial balance and not to think of an order which can cause trauma to the process of adjudication
while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order....
The order passed on application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was interlocutory in nature. The accused persons had not been summoned to appear before the Court concerned. The investigation in the....
Point of law: Inherent power of a High Court – Rejection of quash petition - complaint clearly makes out commission of cognizable offences both under the PC Act as well as IPC, it is impermissible to....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
