HEMA MOHNOT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Crl. M. P. No. 4181 of 1988)-14-7-1988. The petitioner, who is the 12th accused in the case pending against her in C. C. No. 179 of 1985 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E. O. I., Madras, for offences under sections 120B, 420, 467, 471, 197, 182, 181, 177, 193, 468, 196, 199, 200, 201, 380, 379, 419, 420 read with sections 511 and 109, Indian Penal Code, and section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with sections 120B, 100, 419, 420 read with section 511, Indian Penal Code, invoked the inherent powers of this court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the above proceedings Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks quashing on the ground that the only allegation made against the petitioner is that a cheque issued to Hindustan Electronics of which the petitioner is the proprietrix had been encashed by her and deposited in her account and that this allegation, even if true, would not make the petitioner liable, for no charge levelled against her. Notice of this application was given to learned standing counsel for the respondent and learned counsel contended that the petitioner and the co-accused had already filed a similar petition raising several grounds for quashing the proceedings and, not having succeeded in that, have commenced the second round of quash petition early for the purpose of protracting the trial and preventing proper conclusions. Learned counsel also contended that more than 25 witnesses have already been examined and the case stands posted for examination of the accused and, at this stage, the petitioner, without any valid ground, has approached this court.

(2.) THE contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner ought to be argued before the trial court when the question of framing of charges would ariseAs rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondent, the present petitioner and several other co-accused had earlier filed similar applications under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the proceedings. In fact, the petitioner had filed Crl. M. P. No. 3412 of 1985 (see 1992 (198) ITR 390 ) and the same, along with connected applications, had been dismissed by this court on January 28, 1987. In those applications, the petitioner and the co-accused had raised as many as nine contentions and all the contentions had been answered in detail by this court. Witnesses have, thereafter, been examined and the case stands posted for questioning the accused under section 313(a), Criminal Procedure Code. It is only thereafter that the court will decide whether the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution calls for either framing of charges or warrants a discharge of the accused. THE proper course, therefore, is to put forward these contentions before the trial court. Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be invoked when there are statutory remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure itself, particularly when the question of framing of charges has actually arisen. It is obvious that this second round of quash petition has been filed merely to protract the proceedings. Hence, this petition is dismissed.