Petitions U/S 482 CrPC Filed With Delay Or To Overcome Expired Limitation Of Alternate Remedy Cannot Be Entertained: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that failure to avail alternate remedy on the ground of ongoing settlement process is not a reason for the court to exercise its discretionary power to quash the complaint cases.
It further held that while there is no statutory limit to file a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), such petitions cannot be entertained if they involve unexplained delays or latches.
Justice Navin Chawla was considering the petitions filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking to quash the complaints filed against petitioners under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The High Court noted that one limitation on the court to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC includes when the petitioner had an alternate efficacious remedy, but did not avail the same within the period of limitation. It stated that if the petition under Section 482 CrPC is filed to circumvent such limitation, then no remedy could be granted.
It added “…the Courts have refused to entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. where it is filed with unexplained delay and laches and in the meantime, the trial has proceeded.”
It referred to the Supreme Court case of Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan & Anr, 2016, where it was held that the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC must be done only under compelling circumstances and must not subvert other provisions within the Criminal Procedure Code, such as revision under Section 397.
In the present case, the Court noted that the complaints case was transferred to the Trial Court in 2015 and the Trial Court had summoned the petitioners.
It noted that the petitioners did not challenge the maintainability of the Complaints but instead participate in the settlement process. They also did not file Revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to challenge the orders summoning them as accused in the complaint case. The Court stated that the petitioners cannot use the settlement process as a reason to not file a revision application.
“The settlement process, therefore, cannot give a reason to the petitioners to not challenge the maintainability of the complaints or the orders summoning them before this Court at an earlier stage” it remarked.
The court stated that even though there is no limitation period to file a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, the petition may be dismissed if filed with delays and laches.
“…though there is no period of limitation prescribed for a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the same, if filed with delay and laches, may not be entertained by the High Court where the petitioner does not offer any reasonable justification for such inordinate delay in filing of the petition.”
It observed that the petitioners only filed the present petition when the proceedings before the trial court reached the stage of recording of the Complainant's evidence.
The court was of the view that the petition was filed with a mala fide intent, to cause further delay in the trial court proceedings.
The Court thus dismissed the petitions.
“The petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed not only on account of inordinate delay and laches, but also on account of the petitioners not availing of their alternate efficacious remedy in the form of Revision Petition, but instead filing these petitions much beyond the period of limitation and with delay that would have haunted them had they filed the Revision Petitions.”
Case title: Sanyam Bhushan vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. (CRL.M.C. 1675/2022 & CONNECTED MATTERS)