* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Crl.M.C. No.982/2011
Date of Decision: 19.07.2011
BRIJ LAL JINDAL ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.D.K. Monga, Adv.
Versus
ARCHANA KUMARI JINDAL & ANR. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr.Ajay Mehrotra for
respondent No.1.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ? NO
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged three orders dated 14.12.2005, 23.10.2010 & 15.01.2011, passed by the learned Magistrate. Crl.MC. 982/11 Page 1 of 6
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1, Smt.Archana Kumari Jindal, a divorcee is alleged to have got married to one Dr.Jagdish Rai Jindal/respondent No.2 on 28.01.2004, when he was aged around 65. The marriage was allegedly solemnized by a Municipal Court Judge of New Jersey, USA. It is alleged that on 03.02.2005, Archana Kumari Jindal came to India. Thereafter, on 16.05.2005, Dr.Jagdish Rai Jindal/respondent no.2 filed a divorce petition against the respondent No.1, namely, Archana Kumari Jindal in USA. The matrimonial dispute between the parties resulted in various other litigations, which are not of much relevance while dealing with the present petition. On 16.08.2005, respondent No.1, filed a criminal complaint in the court of ACMM, Delhi, under sections 406/498-A/120-B/34 IPC, and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., against her husband, Dr.Jagdish Rai Jindal/ Crl.MC. 982/11 Page 2 of 6 respondent No.2 herein and his brother, Brij Lal Jindal, who is the petitioner.
3. Thereafter, the chargesheet was filed and the summons were issued by the learned MM against the respondent No.2/ Dr.Jagdish Rai Jindal and his brother, Brij Lal Jindal vide order dated 14.12.2005. This is the first order, which is being assailed by the petitioner after a lapse of six years. The order of summoning was not assailed by way of revision within the permissible time limit and challenging the same after a lapse of six years is highly belated and barred not only by limitation but also on account of delay and laches and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the legality or the validity of the said order.
4. Since respondent No.2 and the petitioner were not appearing for one reason or the other, the Court had passed an order, dated 23.10.2010, which reads as under:
Crl.MC. 982/11 Page 3 of 6
"Present: Ld. Counsel for the Comp.
Both Accused are absent.
Ld. Counsel for the Acc. No.2.
It was stated by Ld. Counsel for the Comp. that he is ready to compromise the matter with the accused persons.
Ld. Counsel for acc.No.2 submits that as per his information acc.no.2 has no control over accused no.1 who is stated to working in United States of America. He further submits that his client is only a witness to the marriage ceremony of accused no.1 and has nothing to do with Stridhan given to accused no.1 by the complainant.
The accused persons were summoned on 14.12.2005. I have perused the record. The accused no.1 has not appeared till date. Accused no.2 is represented by his counsel. It is pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that accused no.1 and accused no.2 are real brothers. It is very unlikely the accused no.1 is not aware about the proceedings before this court as it was admitted by counsel for accused no.2 that accused no.2 has repeatedly informed accused no.1 about this case.
I am satisfied that accused no.1 is deliberately avoiding his appearance before this court. Issue Non Bailable Warrants against the accused, J R Jindal who has stated to be working as doctor is New Jersey State of USA for 15.01.2011 to be forwarded for execution through Ministry of Home Affairs for onward transaction to the concerned authorities in the Crl.MC. 982/11 Page 4 of 6 contracting state. Ahlmad is directed to issue the warrants along with covering letters. Accused no.2 is also directed to appear on next date of hearing."
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, since the petitioner, who is a resident of USA, has failed to appear despite having been exempted on number of occasions, the learned Magistrate passed a precipitative order, dated 23.10.2010, directing the issuance of warrants against him for procuring his attendance through coercive methods. It is this order, dated 23.10.2010, which is also assailed by the petitioner before this Court.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order was passed on the assumption, since the respondent No.2, happens to the brother of the petitioner, therefore, he was aware of the dates of hearing and since he has failed to appear, the learned Magistrate has erroneously issued non-bailable warrants.
Crl.MC. 982/11 Page 5 of 6
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any error, impropriety and illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate, warranting interference of this Court. On the contrary, it may be pointed out that the petitioner was granted exemption, subject to certain conditions and the petitioner has not been adhering to these conditions and consequently, the trial cannot proceed. The petitioner after having furnished the undertaking and given assurance to the Court that he will comply with the same cannot assail the said order, dated 23.10.2010, and the order, which is passed by the learned Magistrate on 15.01.2011 on account of non- compliance of the order dated 23.10.2010.
8. I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
July 19, 2011 SS Crl.MC. 982/11 Page 6 of 6