Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Saran Bhatia vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam on 4 March, 2013
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 3711 of 2012
Date of decision : 04.03.2013
Ram Saran Bhatia .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Sullar, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of Criminal Revision Nos. 3711 of 2012 (Ram Saran Bhatia versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam), 3718 of 2012 (Ram Saran Bhatia versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam), 41 of 2013 (Ram Saran Bhatia versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam)and 45 of 2013 (Ram Saran Bhatia versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam).
This revision is directed against order dated 28.09.2012. Alongwith the complaint, the respondent/Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam had filed an application for condonation of delay. Criminal Revision No. 3711 of 2012 -2- Inadvertently, the said application could not be considered on 02.07.2012. When the process was issued against the petitioner- accused, this mistake was rectified. After taking on record the reply and after hearing both the parties, the application for condonation of delay was allowed and this application was, accordingly, disposed of. The respondent, who had earlier been summoned and appeared, was admitted on bail and the case was adjourned to 12.10.2012.
Counsel for the petitioner would contend that once the Court had already summoned the petitioner in a complaint, the condonation of delay was mere formality as the Court had no option but to do so. It is, accordingly, pleaded that summoning itself was bad and so cannot be sustained. The plea further is that the petitioner could have been summoned only after condoning delay as otherwise the complaint was not validly constituted.
This is only a sheer technicality on which the petitioner is relying. Due to some inadvertence, if the order could not be passed on the application, it would not mean that the summoning order is rendered bad on that count. Ultimately, the plea of limitation when raised, has been considered and delay condoned, after hearing both the parties.
During the course of arguments, it is conceded before me that the liability of over ` one crore is standing against the petitioner and this process is being adopted to hoodwink the respondent-Board from realizing the charges. The earlier FIR was registered against the petitioner, which was quashed on the technical ground that only Criminal Revision No. 3711 of 2012 -3- complaint would lie in this case. The aspect of equity cannot be altogether ignored. The petitioner owes such huge amount, which he is not paying. He was given option to deposit the amount or part of the amount as due to which the response is that he has already filed civil suit. The aim in all these petition is to escape this liability, which needs to be checked.
The present petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
March 04, 2013 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE