IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL M.A. NO. OF 2017

IN

CRL M.C. NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Jindal Steel and Power limited .Petitioner

Versus

State & Anr Respondent

REPLY ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER TO THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 482 OF

CrPC, BY AND ON BEHALF OF SUDHIR CHAUDARY PRAYING FOR ISSUING

NECESSARY ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS FOR IMPLEADING THE APPLICANT IN

THE PRESENT MATTER AS AN INTERVENOR/RESPONDENT BEING A

NECESSARY PARTY.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:

1. At the very outset, it is submitted that the contents of the Application under reply are

denied as incorrect and nothing should be deemed to be admitted unless specifically

admitted to herein.
2. That the aforesaid Petition is pending adjudication before this Honble Court. That the

present submission is a reply to the Application by the above named Applicant for

impleadment in the present matter.

3. That after hearing the petitioner this Honble Court was pleased to issue notice to the

Respondent No.1 in the matter, and the Ld. APP accepted notice on behalf of the

Respondent No.1. However the present Applicant was not made a party to the present

Petition by the Petitoner as Respondent as rights of Applicant were not directly involved

in the matter and presently Petition cannot be seen to have an adverse effect on the

applicant.

4. It is submitted that there is no occasion at all for the applicants to be at this stage. He is not

an accused person as he is yet to be summoned. Cognizance has also not been taken by the

learned magistrate of the offence. A distinction need to be drawn between the pre-

cognizance and the post-cognizance stage. In a pre-cognizance case no opportunity can be

given to a prospective accused to be heard as under Section 401 CrPC.

5. Application filed by the applicant is misconceived as the applicant is yet to be summoned

and no process has been issued against him. Therefore the applicant cannot be termed as

an accused as according to Section 401 CrPC.

6. In the present matter the magistrate did not summon the applicant who is termed as

prospective accused in the said charge sheet and even cognizance has also not been taken.

Therefore there is no question of the applicant being heard at this stage of the petition.

REPLY ON MERITS:

1. It is submitted that the contents of para 1 are matter of record and merit no reply.

2. It is submitted that the contents of para 2 are matter of record and merit no reply.
3. It is submitted that the contents of para 3 are matter of record and merit no reply.

4. The contents of para 4 of the present Application are patently false and the same are denied

as incorrect, except to the extent that notice was issued to Respondent No.1 which was

accepted by Ld. APP. The rights of applicants are not directly involved as applicant is only

a prospective accused and not has been summoned till now. Moreover no cognizance has

been taken by the Ld. CMM till now, in such case no rights of the applicants are involved

in the present petition.

5. It is submitted that the contents of para 5 are matter of record and merit no reply.

6. The contents of para 6 of the present Application are patently false and the same are denied

as incorrect. Not joining applicant as respondent in the present petition will not cause any

prejudice to applicant as he has not been even summoned in the present matter. No right

arises in favour of applicant at this stage to be impleaded in the present petition. No right

of applicant to be heard at this stage is present.

7. The contents of para 7 and 8 denied as incorrect. The right to be heard or the principle of

Audi Alteram Partem will only be present when such right is already present with the

applicant. At this stage no right is present with the applicant to be heard.

8. The contents of para 9 and 10 are false and the same are denied as incorrect. The case relied

by the applicant i.e. Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. M/S ShivSundaram Promoters (2009) 2

SCC 363 says that order should be passed without hearing the accused person. But in the

present matter the Applicant is not an accused person as has not been summoned, but only

a prospective accused. Moreover in the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha the Apex Court

was concerned with case where cognizance has already been taken, but in the present
 matter cognizance is yet to be taken by the Ld. CMM and the matter is still at the stage of

investigation.

9. The contents of para 11 of the present Application are patently false and the same are

denied as incorrect. Reliance cannot be placed on Manharibhai Muljibhai Kadakia and

Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors. (2012) 10 SCC 517 as the case only laid

down principle as to after magistrate has taken cognizance, but in the present matter

cognizance has to be taken by the Ld. CMM and it cannot be relied upon. No cognizance

has been taken by the magistrate in respect to the FIR filed, in such circumstances the

question of giving an opportunity to the applicant of being heard as under Section 401

really does not arise.

10. The contents of para 12 of the present Application are patently false and the same are

denied as incorrect as no prejudice will be done to applicant by not impleading him as one

of the respondents.

Prayer

It is therefore most respectfully prayed not to implead the applicant as an Respondent in the present

petition as he being not a necessary party at this stage.

Petitioner