Y SHARMA Vs. ANUP AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short question involved for determination in this petition is whether the accused is entitled to move the Magistrate for dropping the proceedings in a complaint case even if the process of summons has been issued against him. Identical question arose before this Court in Crl. M(M) 2816/2003=106 (2003) DLT 527, M/s Prakash Industries Limited v. State and Ors., and was answered in the affirmative. This proposition of law came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in KM. Mathews v. State of Kerala, I (1992) CCR 316 (SC)=1992 (1) SC 217 and answered as under:

(2.) In the aforesaid Crl. Misc. Petition decided by this Court it was held that the reliance placed by the learned ASJ upon Nilmani Routray v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., 1998 (8) SCC 594, was misplaced as the said judgment did not lay down the ratio and had only recommended for hearing the proposition of law by a Bench of three Judges. Till date it is KM. Matheivs case which is holding field. In view of the unambiguous and clear view taken by the Supreme Court in K.M. Mathews case and by this Court in Prakash Industries case, the petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside.

(3.) Before parting it may be stated that the observations of the learned ASJ in the penultimate sentence that subsequent directions in certain cases by High Court to lower Courts to dispose of pending application without laying down the law does not mean anything, were uncalled for and fall within the mischief of contempt of Court as direction of the High Court to the lower Court is to be complied by the lower Court in letter and spirit even if those directions do not lay down the law. This is mandate of the Constitution as well as the judicial discipline that every subordinate Court should obey the direction of any kind whatsoever issued by the High Court. Petition allowed.