TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of the original complaint, the complainant-Board ought to have waited till the appropriate stage and the present petitioners along with other accused persons, if any, could have been summoned to face the criminal trial as additional accused, by moving an appropriate application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In case, after re-examination of the matter, the respondent- Board was of the view that some additional accused were also involved in the commission of offence in question, it should have waited and taken recourse to the well known procedure of law provided under Section 319 Cr.P.C., by invoking the said provisions at the appropriate stage. Such peculiar fact situation, as obtaining in the present case, has been taken care of by the legislature by providing Section 319 Cr.P.C on the statute book - However, since the complainant-Board proceeded in haste without waiting for the appropriate stage of the criminal trial of its original complaint (Annexure P-5), additional complaint (Annexure P-1) was not maintainable and the same cannot be sustained, for this reason also. The cognizance of the offence having already been taken by the learned Magistrate, while issuing summoning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 (Annexure P-3). In the additional complaint, the respondent complainant/ Board sought to make the petitioners as accused persons, not in the capacity as Directors or Principal/responsible officers of M/s. QRG Central Hospital Research Centre but as Directors or authorised representatives of M/s. QRG Medicare Limited, a different company incorporated under the Companies Act. Petitioners in CRM-M-5691-2015 were made accused in the additional complaint (Annexure P-1) as representatives of M/s. The Vivekananda Ashram, Faridabad. All the three petitions are challenging only the additional complaint (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the impugned summoning order (Annexure P-3). 4. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply on behalf of the respondent-Board was filed. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in all the three petitions, submits that once the original complaint No. 10 of 2013 (Annexure P-5) was already pending trial, the impugned additional complaint bearing No. 158 of 2014 dated 3.9.2014 (Annexure P-1) was not maintainable. He further submits that even if the complainant-Board was of the view that some additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not exceed his jurisdiction, while passing the impugned summoning order. He submits that the petitioners were found involved in serious violations of the relevant provisions of the Act. He would contend that since the petitioners are offenders under the Act, which is a very serious and sensitive issue, they are not entitled for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. On the maintainability of the impugned additional complaint (Annexure P-1), he places reliance on a judgment of Bombay High Court in S.G. Rajadhyakshya v. Razak Cassim Narkar and others, 1984 CriLJ 1454. He also refers to the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 27853 of 2013 {Krishan Lal Gera v. State of Haryana and others} dismissed on 18.12.2013 and CWP No. 15584 of 2013 {Dr.Ambedkar Samaj Sudhar Committee (Regd.) and others v. State of Haryana and others} disposed on 23.7.2013. Learned counsel for the Board submits that against the order dated 18.12.2013 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in the above said writ petition bearing CWP No. 27853 of 2013, petitioner therein namely Krishan Lal Gera has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cused were also involved in the commission of offence in question, it should have waited and taken recourse to the well known procedure of law provided under Section 319 Cr.P.C., by invoking the said provisions at the appropriate stage. Such peculiar fact situation, as obtaining in the present case, has been taken care of by the legislature by providing Section 319 Cr.P.C on the statute book. However, since the complainant-Board proceeded in haste without waiting for the appropriate stage of the criminal trial of its original complaint (Annexure P-5), additional complaint (Annexure P-1) was not maintainable and the same cannot be sustained, for this reason also. 13. Coming to the impugned summoning order (Annexure P-3), it has been found that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the abovesaid material aspect of the matter, about the non-maintainability of the additional complaint (Annexure P-1). The learned Magistrate fell in serious error of law, while exceeding his jurisdiction taking cognizance of the same offence for the second time, which was not permissible in law, because the cognizance of any offence can be taken only once, in terms of Section 190 Cr.P.C. Once the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the new accused persons in such an eventuality could be taken only during the course of trial in pursuance to Section 319 Cr.P.C. in case the evidence would have come up against them. 17. Although no direct judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, yet in para 39 of its judgment in Dharampal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that cognizance of an offence can be taken only once. 18. Coming to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant-Board, there is no dispute about the law laid down therein. However, on close perusal of the cited judgments, the same have been found of no help to the complainant-Board, being distinguishable on facts. It is the settled principle of law that peculiar facts of each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first, before applying any codified or judge made law thereto. Sometimes, difference of one circumstance or additional fact can make the world of difference, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmausundra Rao and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2002 (3) SCC 533. 19. Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
