Arun Gupta vs J. P. Meena - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1467

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1467

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Arun Gupta – Appellant
Versus
J.P. Meena – Respondent
CRM-M No. 39213 of 2015
Decided On : 28-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Mr. Deepak Sabharwal

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 245 and 251 - Discharge of accused in summons case - The application for discharge under Section 245 is not maintainable as this pertains to warrant cases and the correct procedure is to apply Section 251, which governs summons cases - The court reaffirmed that the trial court must first ascertain if a prima facie case exists before framing notice - The petition allowed as the discharge order was quashed, and the case was remanded for proceedings. (Paras 11 and 12)

(B) Inherent powers of the High Court - The High Court cannot entertain application for quashing if an appropriate and efficacious remedy exists within the trial court. The failure to follow procedure does not warrant immediate intervention at the appellate stage. (Paras 6 and 10)

Facts of the case:
The complainant filed charges under Sections 500 & 501 IPC against the accused, who sought discharge under an incorrect section, leading to judicial scrutiny of the discharge orders by the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The applicable discharge procedure was clarified, indicating Section 251 governs summons cases rather than Section 245.

Issues: The core issue was the propriety of the discharge application under Section 245 Cr.PC in a summons case and if it warranted the High Court's intervention.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that discharge applications must align with the correct statutory provisions applicable to summon trials, thereby mandating proper considerations by the trial court.

Result: Petition allowed; discharge order quashed, case remanded.

Table of Content
1. setting aside discharge orders based on procedural grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. contentions on proper application of charge under cr.pc. (Para 6 , 7)
3. clarification on summons vs. warrant cases and discharge. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. quashing of discharge, remanding for trial. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

Judgment

Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The prayer in this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is for setting aside order dated 20.12.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak vide which the respondent/accused came to be discharged and the order dated 17.09.2015 passed by Additional sessions Judge, Rohtak (Annexure P-7) whereby the order of discharge was upheld with a further prayer that the proceedings be continued against the respondent/accused in furtherance of the complaint dated 23.05.2012 and summoning order dated 29.10.2013.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant (hereinafter known as the complainant) filed a complaint under Section 500 IPC and 501 IPC against the respondent/accused (hereinafter known as the accused). The copy of the complaint dated 23.5.2012 is attached as Annexure P-1 to the petition.

The petitioner appeared as CW-1 along with three other witnesses and got recorded their respective statements before the Trial Court. Based on the said statements, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak vide order dated 29.10.2013 summoned the respondent for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 199 Cr.PC and Sections 500 & 501 IPC. The copy of the said order is attached as Annexure P-2.

3. The respondent-accused appeared before the Trial Court and moved an application under Section 245 Cr.PC for discharge. The copy of the said application dated 14.09.2014 is attached as Annexure P-3. A reply was filed to the said application which is attached as Annexure P-4. Vide order dated 20.12.2014 the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak accepted the application for discharge. The copy of the said order dated 20.12.2014 is attached as Annexure P-5.

4. The petitioner/complainant filed a criminal revision petition against the said order. The said revision petition was dismissed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide order dated 17.09.2015 which is attached as Annexure P-7.

5. The aforementioned orders of discharge (Annexure P-5) and the order vide which the discharge was upheld (Annexure P-7) are impugned in the present petition.

6. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the accused had moved an application under Section 245 Cr.PC seeking discharge. Section 245 Cr.PC fell in Chapter XIX and pertains to Trial of Warrant Cases by Magistrates. The instant complaint was infact a summons case which was triable by a Magistrate and therefore, the application for discharge, if at all was to be moved under Section 251 Cr.PC which falls under Chapter XX. He, therefore, contends that the impugned orders were liable to be quashed and the Trial ought to proceed against the respondent/accused. Reliance is placed on the judgments in Raj Buildcon Constructions Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank P. Ltd. 2015 (8) RCR (Criminal) 698, Bal Ram Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Anr. 2015(9) RCR (Criminal) 903, Arvind Kejriwal & Ors. Vs. Amit Sibal & Anr. 2014(9) RCR (Criminal) 1952, S.K. Bhalla Vs. State & Ors. 2011(5) RCR (Criminal) 826 & Dr. Kamala Rajaram Vs. Dy. S.P. Office of the S.P. (Rural) Neyyattinkara & Anr. 2005(16) RCR (Criminal) 765.

7. The Counsel for the respondent/accused has filed a reply dated 12.03.2018. Reference is made to Section 245 Cr.PC as also certain judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court. He does not dispute the proposition of law as has been enunciated by the counsel for the petitioner-complainant but contends that the application under Section 245 Cr.PC could be treated as one under Section 251 Cr.PC by this Court and since a detailed order had been passed discharging the accused, the same ought not to be interfered with.