Case: Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi

On 6th November, 1997 2nd respondent filed a complaint with the Station House Officer, Police Station, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. In the complaint it was stated that 2nd respondent had handed over a consignment of 400 Video Cassette Recorders and 8 sets of 20" Colour Televisions with remote and woofers packed in 417 packages to M/s Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the said firm) for transporting to Guwahati in Assam. In the complaint it was mentioned that the said firm had sent Vehicle No.to the complainants godown and loaded the consignment in the vehicle. It was also stated that the said firm issued Lorry Receipt No. 52806 dated 14th October, 1997. It was stated that the consignment had not been delivered. It was stated that complainant had learned that the consignment was never sent to Guwahati and was kept by the said firm. In the complaint it was claimed that there was breach of trust and forgery on the part of petitioners who were the proprietors of the said firm. On the basis of this complaint the police called the petitioners at the Vasant Vihar Police Station on 8th November, 1997. The petitioner appeared before the police and brought the attention of the police to a letter dated 27th October, 1997 sent by the petitioners. Thereafter the police registered an FIR on 9th November, 1997.3. The petitioners had in the meantime applied for anticipatory bail. The same was refused by the Court. No appeal or Revision was filed against the Order refusing anticipatory bail.4. On 16th December, 1997 the petitioners filed this Criminal Writ Petition No. 905 of 1997 in the High Court of Delhi. In the petition it was prayed that the FIR registered by the police be quashed. It was claimed that 2nd respondent and the Police are acting in abuse and excess of authority conferred by law and are subjecting the petitioners to harassment of criminal proceedings without there being any sufficient ground for taking action against the petitioners. To be remembered that in the Criminal Procedure Code there are sufficient provisions which enable a party to move the High Court if there is abuse of the process of law. The petitioners could have utilised those provisions. Also anticipatory bail had been refused to the petitioners. The Order refusing grant of anticipatory bail was accepted by the petitioners as they filed no Appeal or Revision. There was thus no justification for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition was ultimately dismissed by the High Court of Delhi. However, by this method the petitioners have managed to stall a proper enquiry for the last over

Court's reasoning:
11. In our view, the High Court was right in dismissing the petition. No case has been made out for interference at all. As the petitioners have stalled enquiries for the last overyears, we direct that the Police should now complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible and submit the final report in accordance with law. It is clarified that the Police are at liberty to seize and/or attach the goods and remove the same from the godown of the petitioners to some other place, if they so choose.