Delhi High Court
Grow-On Exports (India) Ltd. And Ors. vs J.K. Goel And Another on 10 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 95(2002)DLT333, 2001(60)DRJ766
Author: K.S.Gupta
Bench: K.S. Gupta
ORDER K.S.Gupta, J.
1. In this petition filed under section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioners seek quashing of complaint No.135/2000/I-J.K.Goel vs. Grow-On Exports (India)Ltd. and proceedings taken there under.
2. Copy of complaint is placed at pages 28 to 32 while that of order passed dated 10th July 2000 passed therein at page 36. It may only be noticed that complaint was filed by respondent No.2 herein in respect of offences under sections 383, 384, 403, 405, 406, 419, 483, 511 read with section 34 IPC alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. Along with complaint an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was also filed with the prayer that investigation in the complaint may be ordered to be made by the SHO PS Roop Nagar, Delhi. On 10th July 2000 following order came to be passed on the complaint and application by the trial court:-
"Present : Sh.D.S. Tiwari, Attorney of Complainant with Ms. Gurkamal Hora, Adv.
Fresh complaint received by assignment. It be checked and registered.
An application under section 156(3) (application annexed with the complaint) wherein the complaint has requested that the complaint be sent to SHI for investigation. Heard. Request allowed.
SHO, Roop Nagar, is directed to investigate and report for 1.8.2000."
3. Against part of this order directing the investigation to be made by the SHO PS Roop Nagar under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the petitioners filed Crl. Revision No.88/2000 which was dismissed by the order dated 18th September 2000 by an Additional Sessions Judge. Immediately thereafter this petition was filed and in Crl. Misc. No. 4123/2000 operation of said order dated 10th July 2000 was stayed by this court by the order dated 28th September 2000 which continues to operate till date. By the time the order dated 28th September 2000 came to be passed the report of SHO PS Roop Nagar which was to be filed by 1st August 2000, had not been submitted.
4. I have heard Sh.S.K. Saxena for petitioners and Sh.S.S.Gandhi for respondent No.2 including on the point of locus standi of the petitioners to file the present petition. From the factual matrix set out above, it amy be noticed that petitioners have not been summoned as accused so far to face trial for the offences for which complaint has been filed by respondent No.2. Question of locus standi to participate in criminal complaint by accused persons fell for consideration in the decisions in Rajiv Kumar Sadh & Ors vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Another , 89 (2001) ELT 419. As is evident from discussion in Para No.1 of this decision, on complaint being filed by respondent No.2 following order came to be passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 24th December 1996:-
"Fresh challan received today. It be checked and registered. Present complainant with counsel. Facts of the case are disclosed. Commissioner of offence cognisable. SHO PS is to investigate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and report. Put up on 34(?).2.1997."
5. Application for recalling the said order filed by petitioners was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate by the order dated 3rd February 1997 holding that they did not have the locus standi at that stage. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the orders dated 24th December 1996 and 3rd February 1997. Relying on the decision in Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prakash Chandra Bose @ Chabi Bose & another , AIR 1963 SC 397 the petition was dismissed by single Judge holding that petitioners had no locus standi to participate in proceedings as the matter was at pre-summoning stage. In Chandra Deo Singh's case it was held:-
"Taking the first ground, it seems to us clear from the entire scheme of Ch.XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure that an accused person does not come into the picture at all till process is issued. This does not mean that he is precluded from being present when an enquiry is held by a Magistrate. He may remain present either in person or through a counsel or agent with a view to be informed of what is going on. But since the very question for consideration being whether he should be called upon to face an accusation, he has no right to take part in the proceedings nor has the Magistrate any jurisdiction to permit him to do so. It would follow from this, therefore, that it would not be open to the Magistrate to put any question to witnesses at the instance of the person named as accused but against whom process has not been issued, nor can he examine any witnesses at the instance of such a person. Of course, the Magistrate himself is free to put such questions to the witnesses produced before him by the complainant as he may think proper in the interests of justice. But beyond that, he cannot go."
6. Ratio in Chandra Deo Singh's case applies on all fours to the facts of this case. As the matter was at pre-summoning stage by the time aforesaid order dated 10th July 2000 was passed, the petitioners whose Criminal Revision No.88/2000 preferred against part of said order directing investigation to be made under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by SHO PS Roop Nagar was dismissed, has no locus standi to file the present petition. Decisions in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others , ; Prabakar Vithal Nalwade vs. Prabhu Khemchand Karamchandani and others , 1999(1) C.Cr. J. 419; Gurbachan Singh vs. State & Ors. 1994 (2) C.C. Cases 90 (HC); Amrik Singh vs. State of Haryana , 1994 (2) C.C. Cases 71 (H.C.) and Satish Chandra vs. Union of India and others , 1996(3) C.C. Cases 409 (HC), relied on behalf of petitioners, have no bearing on the issue of locus standi. Petition is, therefore dismissed with Rs.3,500/- as costs.