The Delhi High Court has observed that petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC with delays or to overcome the limitation objections of an alternate remedy cannot be entertained.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Navin Chawla observed that, "the present set of petitions is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also for the failure of the petitioners to avail of their alternate efficacious remedy in form of Revision Petitions under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. It need not be emphasized that powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are discretionary in nature and though there may not be a total ban on the exercise of such power where the situation so warrants, at the same time, there are limitations of self-restraint that are recognized and followed by the Courts in exercising this jurisdiction. One such limitation is where the petitioner had an alternate efficacious remedy, however, did not avail of the same within the period of limitation and thereafter filed the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to overcome the objection of limitation. Similarly, 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."

In this case, the petitioners filed petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash complaints made against them under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The High Court noted that the complaint case had been transferred to the Trial Court in 2015, and the petitioners had been summoned by the Trial Court. The petitioners did not challenge the maintainability of the complaints and instead participated in the settlement process without filing a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to challenge the summons. The Court remarked, “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 was stated that although there is no limitation period prescribed for a petition under Section 482 CrPC, petitions filed with delays and laches may not be entertained unless reasonable justification for the delay is provided.

The Court observed that the petitioners only filed the present petition when the trial court proceedings reached the stage of recording the complainant's evidence, indicating a mala fide intent to cause further delay in the trial court proceedings. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petitions, stating, "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."

Cause Title: Sanyam Bhushan & Ors. vs State of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC: 4868)

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Delhi High CourtJustice Navin ChawlaCrPC

Ananya Soni