Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Reena Singh – Appellant
Versus
M/s Bhumi Sagar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Cr.M.C. 492 of 2022, Cr.M.A. 2157 of 2022
Decided On : 05-04-2023
Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray and Mr. Abhik Kumar, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vijender Bhardwaj, Mr. Vimal Kumar and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates, for the Respondent.
Abuse of process of law by invoking concurrent jurisdictions for the same relief constitutes an abuse of the process of court.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process of Law - Summoning Order under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the summoning order, citing abuse of process of law due to the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of both the sessions court and the high court for the same relief.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the summoning order for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner had also filed a revision petition before the sessions court, which was pending at the time of filing the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's conduct amounted to an abuse of the process of law as he invoked the jurisdiction of both the sessions court and the high court for the same relief. The court dismissed the present petition along with the pending application.
Issues: Abuse of process of law, Invocation of concurrent jurisdictions, Dismissal of application for discharge
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that invoking the jurisdiction of both the sessions court and the high court for the same relief amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
Final Decision: The present petition along with the pending application was dismissed, and the revision court was directed to dispose of the case without being influenced by the order of the high court in the present petition.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the summoning order dated 21.10.2019 whereby the petitioner has been summoned for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque in this case was issued on 20.09.2019. The petitioner was neither the signatory nor was the Director at the time of issuance of cheque. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had resigned from the company on 18.09.2019. In this regard, he has also placed on record Form No.DIR-11.
3. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had also moved an application for discharge which was dismissed by learned M.M. as having no jurisdiction to review or recall its order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the dismissal of application for discharge, he moved a revision petition bearing no.89/2022, which is pending before the learned Sessions Court and is now fixed for 10.04.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition was filed after filing of revision petitioner. Learned counsel submits that there is no bar on filing the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the revisional power under Section 397 Cr.P.C. cannot affect the inherent power of the High Court. Reliance has been placed on Vijay and Another vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2017) 13 SCC 317 & Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2016) 16 SCC cases 30.
5. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the petitioner could have filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C but the fact is that first he preferred revision petition and during the pendency of the revision petition, he filed a petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has to verify if the revision petition was filed before filing of the present petition or after this.
7. In any way, whether the revision petition has been filed before filing of this petition or thereafter, it amounts to abuse of the process of law. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the sessions court as well as this court, asking the same relief. This conduct is totally deprecated and amounts to abuse of the process of court.
8. In the circumstances, the present petition along with the pending application is dismissed.
9. The revision court is directed to dispose of the case in accordance with law without being influenced by the order of this court in the present petition.
