Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

USHA AHUJA versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Decided
24 August 1999
Judges listed
K. VENKATASWAMI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 673 · 1999 INSC 351
Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. Leave is granted.

p. 674, margin C

The appellant and the second respondent were partners of partnership firm, Mis. Jupiter Industries. A complaint was lodged against the second and third respondents, FIR No.193, under Sections 405, 406 and 408, IPC at the Police Station, Mujessar, District Faridabad on July 19, 1996. A Civil Suit is pending between the parties for dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of accounts. The said respondents filed Criminal Misc.Petition 24679- M of 1997 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana praying to quash the FIR. The High Court by its order dated April 17, 1998, having noticed that a Civil Suit is pending between the parties and investigation on the complaint of the appellant by the police is in progress, stayed the filing of the final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. by the police. It is from that order, this appeal has arisen.

p. 674, margin D

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

p. 674, margin F

The relevant portion of the impugned order of the High Court reads as follows:

p. 674, margin F

"In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to be reasonable, if the filing of the final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.

p. 674, margin G

is stayed till the decision of the suit. Ordered accordingly." It is now well-settled that the width of power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in principle, is very expansive but in practice the power is exercised in exceptional cases. The inherent power of the Court is not an unrestricted power to make any order \\'.hich the High Court desires to pass. The power is meant to be exercised to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. By passing the impugned order, the High Court did not achieve any of the purposes for which the power exists. It does no good to anybody. It is of utmost importance that criminal cases be disposed of expeditiously as right of an accused to have speedy trial is a right which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution. Far from ensuring speedy.Jrial the High Court placed embargo at the pre-trial stage by staying the filing of final report by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.c: It is a well- known fact that disposal of a civil suit takes fairly long time, so no useful purpose will be achieved by staying the filing of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. by the police till the disposal of the suit. The impugned order serves no useful purpose, nay, it is wholly extraneous to the purposes for which the power is preserved. In our view, it is most inappropriate to stay the filing of the final report by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. after the police has investigated the case. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the order under appeal; we set aside the same. Let further steps be taken in accordance with law. Appeal is accordingly allowed. B.K.M. Appeal allowed.

pp. 674–675, margin G