9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the capacity of her being the Director of both the respondent-accused companies. Quashing of aforesaid complaint (Annexure P-1 colly.) and impugned order (Annexure P-2) is sought on merits in this petition. 2. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had placed reliance upon decisions in Anil D. Ambani Anr. v. State of Bihar Anr. 2006 (4) PLJR 571; S.A. Khan v. Union of India Manu/TN/4165/2011;Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and Others (2008) 5 SCC 668; R.C. Gupta Ors. v. State Anr. MANU/DE/0239/2008; Ashok Sikka v. State 147 (2008) DLT 552; Vineet Jain v. NCT of Delhi Ors. in Crl.M.C.2704/07 rendered on 10th October, 2011; Dr. P.Sharma v. P.S. Popli Anr. 94 (20001) DLT 913; Savera Sidhu v. Harleen Sidhu An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Section 305 of Cr.P.C. merely enables a company to be represented by a nominee and it does not bar summoning of a principal officer of accused company. It was pointed out that respondent's application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to admit evidence against petitioner is pending and no reply to it has been filed by petitioner and that impugned order discloses due application of mind and is a reasoned order. Thus, it was submitted that no case is made out by petitioner for invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court and so, this petition deserves rejection. 5. After having heard both the sides and on perusal of the criminal complaint (Annexure P-1 colly) and the impugned order (Annexure P-2), the material on record and the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to mechanically frame Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. and has to apply its mind to find out as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not and in the event of finding that no case is made out for proceeding against a particular accused, trial court would be well within its right to drop the proceedings qua such an accused. 7. On this aspect, pertinent observations of Apex Court in Bhushan Kumar Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Anr. AIR 2012 SC 1747 are as under:- 17. It is inherent in Section 251 of the Code that when an accused appears before the trial Court pursuant to summons issued under Section 204 of the Code in a summons trial case, it is the bounden duty of the trial Court to carefully go through the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and, if such an application is filed, the trial court shall after hearing both the sides and after recording evidence on the question on jurisdiction, shall decide the question of jurisdiction before further proceeding with the trial. 9. It is no doubt true that Apex Court in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 has ruled that there cannot be recalling of summoning order, but seen in the backdrop of decisions of Apex Court in Bhushan Kumar and Krishan Kumar (supra), aforesaid decision cannot be misconstrued to mean that once summoning order has been issued, then trial must follow. If it was to be so, then what is the purpose of hearing accused at the stage of framing Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
