- (1.) Quashing of criminal complaint No. 8583/1/2014, titled as Nishi Gupta v. Om Saran Gupta, under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the summoning order of 1st October, 2014 is sought on merits in this petition.
(2.) At the hearing, it was disclosed by learned counsel for petitioner that Notice under Section 251 of Cr. P. C. has not yet been framed and the next date before trial court is 23rd March, 2015.
(3.) At the outset, it is made clear that learned counsel for petitioner has not been heard on merits. Since petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy available to him to urge the pleas taken herein before trial court at the time of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr. P. C., therefore, this Court finds that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. are not required to be invoked to quash the proceedings arising out of the complaint in question. It is being so said in view of dictum of the Apex Court in Bhushan Kumar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2012 AIR(SC) 1747, which persuades this Court not to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to entertain this petition. The pertinent observations of Apex Court in Bhushan Kumar , are as under:- "17. It is inherent in Section 251 of the Code that when an accused appears before the trial Court pursuant to summons issued under Section 204 of the Code in a summons trial case, it is the bounden duty of the trial Court to carefully go through the allegations made in the charge- sheet or complaint and consider the evidence to come to a conclusion whether or not, commission of any offence is disclosed and if the answer is in the affirmative, the Magistrate shall explain the substance of the accusation to the accusation to the accused and ask him whether he pleads guilty otherwise, he is bound to discharge the accused as per Section 239 of the Code.";