Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (1.00 seconds)Superintendent And Remembrancer Of ... vs Mohan Singh And Ors. on 8 October, 1974
He sought to contend in the light of certain observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Superintendent and Rememberancer of Legal Affairs v. Mohan Singh and Ors., AIR 1975 SC 1002 that there is no legal bar to the maintenance of successive applications invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to quash the proceedings pending in the subordinate Courts to secure the ends of justice, and that on facts the case in hand is one where the petitioners deserve to be granted that relief. In a nutshell, the suggestion was that the continuation of those proceedings before the trial Magistrate not only amounts to abuse of process of the Court but virtually amounts to persecution of the petitioners on account of the mental stress and strain they have undergone thus far. According to the learned counsel, continuation of these proceedings would be gross injustice to his clients. He highlighted the delay that has already occurred in the disposal of the cases pending against the petitioners. As against this, the stand of Mr. Brar, learned counsel for the complainant, was that firstly there is no limitation applicable to the filing or continuation of these proceedings in view of the Economic Offenders (Non-applicability of Limitation) Act, 1974 which squarely covers the complaints in question and secondly, neither has there been any unnecessary delay on the part of the authorities concerned in launching the prosecution, and in case there was any, the same was unavoidable in view of the detailed investigations involved. He even maintained that it were the petitioners who were responsible for the said delay. In order to press his submission he highlighted that even till today they have not chosen to present themselves before the trial Court. He further pointed out that the question of delay in the conclusion of these proceedings has already been considered by this Court vide its order dated February 8,1984 and there is no legal justification to review that order. He also pointed out that subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier similar petitions by this Court vide order dated February 8,1984, their Lordships of the Supreme Court on January 31, 1985, ordered stay of the proceedings pending in the Court of the trial Magistrate. This order of course was passed as a result of a move made by the prosecution for the transfer of these cases from Patiala to Delhi where two charge-sheets were filed against Mr. J.C. Verma, father of Mr. R.K. Verma, as most of the material evidence in the two sets of cases was common and different, trials of these cases were likely to prejudice the case of the prosecution. He argued that in the light of this order, no progress in these cases could possibly be achieved. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel, I find that no case has been made out to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners at Patiala.
Section 6 in Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1