Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1776/2015 and Crl. M.A. 6398/2015
ARJUN SINGH - Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain and Mr. Amit Kasera, Advocates
CRL.M.C. 1776/2015 and Crl. M.A. 6398/2015
ARJUN SINGH - Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain and Mr. Amit Kasera, Advocates
VERSUS
ADITYA SARDA Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Mr. ShakilAhmed and Ms. Himani Kapoor, Advocates
CRL.M.C. 1788/2P15 and Crl. M. (Bail) 3423/2015 and Crl. M.A.
6420/2015 ARJUN SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain and Mr. Amit Kasera, Advocates
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Mr. ShakilAhmed and Ms. Himani Kapoor, Advocates
CRL.M.C. 1788/2P15 and Crl. M. (Bail) 3423/2015 and Crl. M.A.
6420/2015 ARJUN SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain and Mr. Amit Kasera, Advocates
VERSUS
ADITYA SARDA Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Mr. ShakilAhmed and Ms. Himani Kapoor, Advocates
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Mr. ShakilAhmed and Ms. Himani Kapoor, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
10.07.2018 Both these petitions are by the same person who faces prosecution in a complaint case (CC 55/1/11 pending-in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, it being a criminal complaint involving accusation of offences under Section 500IPG having been
CRLM C. 1776/2015 & 1788/2015 page 1 of5
2018:DHC:8344 committed by the petitioner, the respondent herein being the complainant.
Concededly, the criminal complaint was filed in 2011 and after preliminary enquiry the petitioner was summoned to face the trial.
Concededly again, the summon trial procedure was followed and the trial commenced with service of notice under Section 251. Cr. PC in the year 2012. The case, as is borne out from the record and^ is vociferously argued by the counsel for the respondent, has suffered delay mostly on account of,the recalcitrant attitude of the petitioner who would insist on his personal appearance being exempted or he not appearing, this resulting in stalling ofproceedings.-
The petitioner claims to be a Member of Legislative Assembly of the State of West Bengal and in public / social service. He also claims to be suffering from certain ailments which come in the way of his frequent travels to Delhi. Admittedly, he is an ordinary resident of
District North, 2.4 Parganas in West Bengal.
The application of the petitioner seeking permanent exemption from personal appearance was declined by the Metropolitan
Magistrate by order dated 27.01.2015. He challenged the said order in court of sessions by revision ,but the same was declined by order dated
07.03.2015. These are the two orders which are sought to be assailed by the first captioned petition.
It appears that in the wake of the said two orders having been passed when the case had reached the next date of hearing before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitionerwouldnot appear. This led to
10.07.2018 Both these petitions are by the same person who faces prosecution in a complaint case (CC 55/1/11 pending-in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, it being a criminal complaint involving accusation of offences under Section 500IPG having been
CRLM C. 1776/2015 & 1788/2015 page 1 of5
2018:DHC:8344 committed by the petitioner, the respondent herein being the complainant.
Concededly, the criminal complaint was filed in 2011 and after preliminary enquiry the petitioner was summoned to face the trial.
Concededly again, the summon trial procedure was followed and the trial commenced with service of notice under Section 251. Cr. PC in the year 2012. The case, as is borne out from the record and^ is vociferously argued by the counsel for the respondent, has suffered delay mostly on account of,the recalcitrant attitude of the petitioner who would insist on his personal appearance being exempted or he not appearing, this resulting in stalling ofproceedings.-
The petitioner claims to be a Member of Legislative Assembly of the State of West Bengal and in public / social service. He also claims to be suffering from certain ailments which come in the way of his frequent travels to Delhi. Admittedly, he is an ordinary resident of
District North, 2.4 Parganas in West Bengal.
The application of the petitioner seeking permanent exemption from personal appearance was declined by the Metropolitan
Magistrate by order dated 27.01.2015. He challenged the said order in court of sessions by revision ,but the same was declined by order dated
07.03.2015. These are the two orders which are sought to be assailed by the first captioned petition.
It appears that in the wake of the said two orders having been passed when the case had reached the next date of hearing before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitionerwouldnot appear. This led to
CRL.M.C. 1776/2015 & 1788/2015 page 2 of5
M duress process being issued which too failed to secure his presence.
The applications were filed to seek exemption from his appearance on some of the dates thereafter which were granted. Eventually, he moved an application for recall of the process which was declined by order dated 17.04.2015 whereupon the Magistrate decided to secure his presence by issuing non-bailable warrant with notice under
Section 446 Cr. PC to his surety. This is the subject matter of second captioned petition.
Undoubtedly, the record is replete with instances of the petitioner having abused the process of law and having attempted to cause inordinate delay. At the same time, however, it cannot be ignored that the prosecution under Section 500 IPC does not necessarily require his personal appearance at every step of the way, particularly, in view of the fact that he is on record to state that he does not dispute his identity by the complainant and his witnesses.
Having regard to the fact that he is an ordinary resident of West
Bengal, District North 24 Paragans which requires a long travel possibly by train or by air entailing financial burden, a more practical approach could have been adopted by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the court of Sessions by acceding to his request for exemption from personal appearance through counsel.
Thus, in view of these facts, while this court is inclined to grant the exemption from personal appearance as has been sought, the order carmot be unconditional in as much as there is a need to plug the possibility of fiirther abuse of the process by the petitioner. At the
CRL.M.C. 1776/2015 & 1788/2015 page 3 of5 r r same time, he must pay the costs for the delay, which has occasioned on account of his obstinate conduct.
The petitions are allowed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid on the next date of hearing to the complainant. The exemption from personal presence of the petitioner in the proceedings arising out of the criminal complaint hereafter stands granted, in view of his reiteration through counsel that he does not dispute his identity bythe complainant or his witnesses, subjectto the following conditions
(i). The petitioner shall formally engage a counsel and place on record vakalatnama in favour of such counsel as is instructed by him to appear on his behalf and in his lieu, on each and every date of hearing.
(ii). The counsel so engaged and instructed shall appear on eachand every date on the first call, duly briefed and instructed, and shall not seek any adjournment particularly on the ground of absence of the petitioner or for seeking further instructions from him and it shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure that the counsel abides by this condition ,scrupulously and in the case of inability on the part of the counsel to appear on a particular, date, it shall be the obligation of the petitioner to make suitable alternative arrangement in advance.
(iii). In the event of any default on the part ofthe counsel engaged or instructed by the petitioner to appear and assist the trial court in terms of the directions given above, the Metropolitan Magistrate will have the power and jurisdiction to forfeit the bail bonds and issue duress
CRL.M.C. 1776/2015 & 1788/2015 . page 4 of5 b process against the petitioner to secure his presence in accordance with law.
(iv). The above exemption from personal appearance, however, is not to be construed to the effect that the petitioner will not be obliged to appear at such stages where the Metropolitan Magistrate feels it necessary to insist on his personal appearance.
With these directions, the impugned orders stand modified / set aside, the bail bonds are restored and both the petitions and the applications filed therewith are disposed of
Dasti to both sides.
JULY 10, 2018 Yg
M duress process being issued which too failed to secure his presence.
The applications were filed to seek exemption from his appearance on some of the dates thereafter which were granted. Eventually, he moved an application for recall of the process which was declined by order dated 17.04.2015 whereupon the Magistrate decided to secure his presence by issuing non-bailable warrant with notice under
Section 446 Cr. PC to his surety. This is the subject matter of second captioned petition.
Undoubtedly, the record is replete with instances of the petitioner having abused the process of law and having attempted to cause inordinate delay. At the same time, however, it cannot be ignored that the prosecution under Section 500 IPC does not necessarily require his personal appearance at every step of the way, particularly, in view of the fact that he is on record to state that he does not dispute his identity by the complainant and his witnesses.
Having regard to the fact that he is an ordinary resident of West
Bengal, District North 24 Paragans which requires a long travel possibly by train or by air entailing financial burden, a more practical approach could have been adopted by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the court of Sessions by acceding to his request for exemption from personal appearance through counsel.
Thus, in view of these facts, while this court is inclined to grant the exemption from personal appearance as has been sought, the order carmot be unconditional in as much as there is a need to plug the possibility of fiirther abuse of the process by the petitioner. At the
CRL.M.C. 1776/2015 & 1788/2015 page 3 of5 r r same time, he must pay the costs for the delay, which has occasioned on account of his obstinate conduct.
The petitions are allowed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid on the next date of hearing to the complainant. The exemption from personal presence of the petitioner in the proceedings arising out of the criminal complaint hereafter stands granted, in view of his reiteration through counsel that he does not dispute his identity bythe complainant or his witnesses, subjectto the following conditions
(i). The petitioner shall formally engage a counsel and place on record vakalatnama in favour of such counsel as is instructed by him to appear on his behalf and in his lieu, on each and every date of hearing.
(ii). The counsel so engaged and instructed shall appear on eachand every date on the first call, duly briefed and instructed, and shall not seek any adjournment particularly on the ground of absence of the petitioner or for seeking further instructions from him and it shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure that the counsel abides by this condition ,scrupulously and in the case of inability on the part of the counsel to appear on a particular, date, it shall be the obligation of the petitioner to make suitable alternative arrangement in advance.
(iii). In the event of any default on the part ofthe counsel engaged or instructed by the petitioner to appear and assist the trial court in terms of the directions given above, the Metropolitan Magistrate will have the power and jurisdiction to forfeit the bail bonds and issue duress
CRL.M.C. 1776/2015 & 1788/2015 . page 4 of5 b process against the petitioner to secure his presence in accordance with law.
(iv). The above exemption from personal appearance, however, is not to be construed to the effect that the petitioner will not be obliged to appear at such stages where the Metropolitan Magistrate feels it necessary to insist on his personal appearance.
With these directions, the impugned orders stand modified / set aside, the bail bonds are restored and both the petitions and the applications filed therewith are disposed of
Dasti to both sides.
JULY 10, 2018 Yg
CRL.M.C. 1776/2015 & 1788/2015
R-lCTGAUmfj page 5 of5
R-lCTGAUmfj page 5 of5
JUDGMENT