V.S. RAMAMURTHY AND ORS. Vs. TULSINARAYAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUASHING of criminal complaint No. 33/1/2002, under Sections 323/342/384/392/500/506 of IPC read with Section 120 -B of IPC titled Tulsi Narayan Prasad v. Prof. V.S. Rama Murti and Ors. and the orders of 9th February, 2011 and 26th March, 2013 vide which petitioners have been summoned for the offences under Sections 499/500 of IPC, is sought on merits in this petition.

(2.) AT the hearing, it was disclosed by learned senior counsel for petitioners that Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. has not yet been framed and the next date before trial court is 22nd August, 2015.

(3.) AT the outset, it is made clear that learned senior counsel for petitioners have not been heard on merits. The pleas raised by learned senior counsel for petitioners are on the aspects which ought to be considered by the trial court while hearing the parties at the stage of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C.. Since petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy available to them to urge the pleas taken herein before trial court at the time of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., therefore, this Court finds that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are not required to be invoked to quash the proceedings arising out of the complaint in question. It is being so said in view of dictum of the Apex Court in Bhushan Kumar & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. : AIR 2012 SC 1747, which persuades this Court not to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to entertain this petition. The pertinent observations of Apex Court in Bhushan Kumar (Supra), are as under: -