The court should only use the authority granted by Section 311 CrPC to further the interests of justice.
TITLE: Anil Sehgal v State of Punjab
Decided On-: March 10, 2023
CRM-M-8107-2018 (O&M) and CRM-M-8363-2018 (O&M)
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Aman Chaudhary
INTRODUCTION- The defendant, Vikas Shrivastva, challenges the application in a reply, claiming that he is entitled to a speedy trial under article 21 of the Indian Constitution. While the FDR regarding the alleged incidents was registered in 2007, the challan in the case was filed on November 10, 2009, and the charge in the aforementioned case was framed on June 4, 2011. The case in question dates back to 1993. The prosecution’s case has been hanging since that point due to a lack of prosecution evidence.
FACTS OF THE CASE-
The current petitions have been filed under Section 482 CrPC to set aside the order dated 19.01.2017, Annexure P-11, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Ludhiana, and to issue the proper instructions to the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Ludhiana to consider and decide the applications dated 17.10.2010 and 24.01.2012 arising out of FIR No. 18 dated 28.02.2007, Annexure P-1, registered at Police Station Ladhowal
Allegations against the petitioner included that the complainant, who was the promoter-director of M/s Sutlej Fun Resorts Limited and owned 30% of its shares, provided sureties and securities, including personal undertakings, and signed various loan agreements in order to obtain the loan amount from different financial institutions, including PSIDC and PFC, among others. He also agreed to part with his retained titled deeds in the form of an equitable mortgage. The similarly accused G.D. Agarwal and A.K. Agarwal deposited their respective title deeds to secure the loan facilities, along with other Directors, but they did so with ulterior, dishonest motives from the start. The accused never complied with the PSIDC requirement that no changes to the Board of Directors or management of the company could be made without their prior approval when the loan was sanctioned and granted; however, they forced the complainant to sign an agreement that required him to sell 20% of his shares in favour of G.D. Agarwal and 10% of his shares in favour of Mukesh Khullar, and the remaining 30% of his shares in the company would be paid in full. Instead, they filed a false and baseless criminal complaint against the petitioner and his family members. By transferring the complainant’s share and forging his signatures, they caused the complainant to suffer an injustice and themselves to benefit unfairly. As a result, the case’s challan was delivered on September 21st, 2009.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
The learned trial Court, according to the learned counsel, erred in dismissing the application primarily on the basis of hyper technicality because the complainant lacked locus standi to file it and the prosecution should have been the one to do so. Learned According to the state attorney, the petitioner’s application was correctly rejected by the skilled trial court because it lacked locus standi, and the contested order contains no errors.
With regard to CRM-M-8363-2018, the learned State counsel claims that the applications, Annexures P-7 and P-8, have already been decided, making the petition infructuous. This petition is asking the trial court to direct itself to decide the applications.
Considering the discussion from above, this Court concludes that the order contested in CRM-M-8107-2018 is not unlawful or erroneous. Due to the infructuous disposition of CRM-M-8363-2018, the aforementioned petition is hereby dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Steffi Desousa