9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Penal Code. Though a period of more than five years has elapsed after the filing of the charge-sheet, we are informed, that charges are yet to be framed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South) Saket, New Delhi. 2. Soon after the registration of the FIR referred to in the foregoing paragraph, the Petitioner filed a complaint Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 24.9.2004. The aforesaid complaint was made against Respondent No. 2, Mrs. Veena Solanki. Along with her complaint, the Petitioner claims to have filed her evidence by way of a personal affidavit. Thereafter on 25.9.2006, the Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act) trying the complaint, allowed Respondent No. 2 to cross- examine the Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant to notice, that in order to facilitate Respondent No. 2 to cross-examine the Petitioner, the Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act) trying the complaint filed by the Petitioner, vide an order dated 9.9.2009 summoned the charge-sheet filed in Case FIR No. 13 of 2004. The Petitioner Ms. Karuna Singh, assailed the aforesaid order dated 9.9.2004 in the High Court at Delhi by filing Criminal Misc. Case No. 3668 of 2009. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the trial court despite the pendency of Criminal M.C. No. 3668 of 2009, allowed Respondent No. 2 to cross-examine the Petitioner, even with reference to the charge-sheet in case FIR No. 13 of 2004 (and other documents connected therewith). In so far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Petitioner. It was submitted, that the High Court has however failed to grant any injunction, staying further cross-examination of the Petitioner before the Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act). 4. In the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, in order to respond to the query made by this Court on the issue of maintainability (of the instant writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India), Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar AIR 1969 SC 556, Dr. Smt.Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 2186 and Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and Ors. (19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent No. 2), as the Petitioner's fundamental rights are being violated. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as also, the judgments relied upon by him. We are astonished at the submissions advanced at the hands of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The petitioner herein is seeking directions to the concerned Magistrate, as a matter of first instance at the hands of this Court. The submissions advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner by themselves concede, that there is an alternative remedy available to the Petitioner, yet he has chosen to come to the highest court of the land, under Article 32 of the Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court, are pending adjudication before the High Court at Delhi, the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, without assailing any order passed by the High Court. This, in our considered view, amounts to gross misuse of the jurisdiction of this Court. Such a behaviour at the hands of the Petitioner cannot be countenanced. The effort of the Petitioner seems to be, to browbeat either Respondent No. 2, or the Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act), so that the proceedings progress as per the desire of the Petitioner. In her aforesaid effort, the Petitioner has also cast aspersions against the High Court. 6. This is not a case where despite availability of an alternative remedy, the Petitioner h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore AIR 2010 SC 1402. The instant reliance was placed on the basis of the merits of the controversy i.e., in support of the merits of the Petitioner's cause. Having gone through the judgment relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we find that the same is wholly inapplicable to this case. In Mandvi Coop. Bank's case (supra) the accused on being summoned Under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, raised the plea, that inspite of the complainant having filed his evidence by way of an affidavit Under Section 145(1), the complainant must be orally examined in chief all over again, before the accused is summoned or called upon to cross-examine the complainant. This Court while disposin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
