DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners- Devendra Kumar Jain and Anurag Kumar Jain, after being served with a notice under the provisions of Section 251 of the Cr. P. C., as accused persons for offences under section 427 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, in a complaint case instituted by Kapil Kumar, respondent No. 2 herein. The complaint was filed inK October, 1982, and on consideration of the allegations made in the complaint as well as preminary evidence adduced by the complainant, the magistrate came to tile conclusion that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the accused persons and, therefore, ordered their suoning to face trial under section 427/34 Indian Penal Code . After protracted proceedings on account of some applications having been moved by the accused persons, and after disposal of those applications by order dated 7th January, 1988, the magistrate eventually took up the case on 16th May, 1988, and passed order of service of notice under section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code . on the two accused persons before him to face trial for the offence under section 427134 IPC.

(2.) The accused entered plea of not guilty and also filed a written statement enclosing copies of certain court proceedings in a civil matter, whereafter the court adjourned the matter for complainant's evidence on 5th February, 1989.

(3.) In this petition it is contended that the order whereby one court framed notice under section 251 Criminal Procedure Code . and served the same upon the accused persons, suffers from the vice of lack of application of mind by the court, and thus liable to be quashed. Further that. the court has not paid due regard to the wording of section 251 Criminal Procedure Code ., as it stands at present, in contradistinction to the earlier section 242 .)f the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the present provisions envisage the situation, where the accused persons indicate their defence, making it incumbent upon the court concerned to consider that defence, and in appropriate cases, discharge the accused persons rather than unnecessarily prolong the proceedings, and that in this case inspite of the fact that the accused persons Sled the written statement disclosing their defence as supplemented by the copies of the court proceedings, the court did not advert to that defence, and decided to proceed further by fixing a date for complainant's evidence and that the proceedings will thus result in the abuse of process of law, and are Ilable to be quashed.