Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 221 (UTT)

CHANDER KUMAR SABHARWAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-04-07

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. By means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the order dated 16.03.2017, passed by learned 7th Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in Criminal Revision No. 318 of 2016, whereby the order dated 09.11.2016 passed by learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Case No. 385 of 2013, Sanjeev Sabharwal vs. Chander Kumar Sabharwal, has been affirmed in a casual manner. A further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 09.11.2016 passed by the learned 3rd ACJM, Dehradun in Case No. 975 of 2013, Sanjeev Sabharwal vs. Chander Kumar Sabharwal rejecting the application of the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It has also been prayed to stay further proceedings of Case No. 385 of 2013 Sanjeev Sabharwal vs. Cahnder Kumar Sabharwal, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The facts giving rise to the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be summarized as below. 3. The complainant instituted a criminal complaint case against the accused-applicant under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act on 18.04.2013. The accused was summoned to face the trial on 15.07.2013. He appeared before the Trial Court on 21.05.2014. The complainant recorded his examination-in-chief on 12.06.2014. He was cross-examined on 31.07.2014. Complainant completed his evidence on 30.10.2014. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 16.11.2015, after 16 adjournments. Thereafter, 7 dates were given for defence evidence. On 12.05.2016 opportunity for defence was closed and the Criminal Case was listed for arguments. The accused continued to take adjournments for arguments on 6 different dates. On 03.11.2016, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on his behalf which was dismissed by the Trial Court by a reasoned and speaking order. Such order of the Trial Court was challenged before the Revisional Court. 4. Revisional Court, again by passing a reasoned and speaking order dismissed the Criminal Revision vide order dated 16.03.2017. Still, being aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the accused-applicant. 5. The Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court has given cogent reasons for not accepting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Under the estimation of this Court it was nothing, but a dilatory tactics on behalf of the accused to prolong the trial to frustrate the ends of justice. 5. The Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court has given cogent reasons for not accepting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Under the estimation of this Court it was nothing, but a dilatory tactics on behalf of the accused to prolong the trial to frustrate the ends of justice. Thus, the Court has given a brief summary of dates in the forgoing paragraphs of this judgment to show that how dilatory tactics was adopted by the accused-applicant to thwart the course of justice. The provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been quoted by the Revisonal Court in her judgment. This Court need not reproduce the same for the sake of brevity. Sufficient will it be to say that the purpose of filing the application under 311 Cr.P.C. was nothing, but to prolong the decision in Criminal Complaint Case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The same appears to be nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. 6. The Application under Section 482 thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.