The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sherry George vs Govt. Of NCT of Delhi consisting of Justice Asha Menon observed that an investigation into the cause/reason for recusal by a judge, particularly, by a litigant, would itself be an interference with the course of justice.
Facts
The petitioner (Sherry George) is the Director and authorized representative of the Indian Fitness Connect Pvt. Ltd, a company incorporated under the Companies Act. Ozone Spa Pvt. Ltd. through one Jitendra Agnihotri (Chief Accountant of the said company). It filed an application u/s 156(3) CrPC., against the petitioner and other Directors of India Fitness Connect Pvt. Ltd., which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It was alleged by the petitioner that the said complainant had sought to influence the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It was submitted that thereafter, since a grave offence had been committed i.e., the interference with the administration of justice, as well as an offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 186 IPC and other penal provisions, the petitioner lodged a complaint but no FIR was registered, despite requests to superior police officers.
Procedural History
Consequently, the petitioner filed an application u/s 156(3) of CrPC before the learned Special Judge seeking registration of FIR against five named persons and other unknown persons. The learned Special Judge, however, dismissed the application holding that no investigations were warranted as the identity of the accused persons was well within the knowledge of the complainant and the assistance of the police was not required to collect evidence at that stage.
Contentions Made
Appellant: Since the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate had held that influence had been sought to be exerted through “unknown” persons, the identity of those unknown persons was required to be established, which only the police could do. Hence, this Court may issue directions for registration of a case.
Respondent: There was no merit in the present petition and the same ought to be dismissed forthwith. Furthermore, the learned Special Judge had also granted an opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence and therefore, no prejudice had been caused to her
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that the learned Special Judge was justified in disallowing the application u/s 156(3) CrPC and directing the registration of an FIR, as no police investigation was required in the matter. However, the learned Special Judge erred in allowing the petitioner to lead evidence in the complaint filed by her.
Investigation into the cause/reason for recusal by a judge, particularly, by a litigant, would itself be an interference with the course of justice. When a judge recuses, no litigant or third party has any right to intervene, comment or enquire. Had a judge refrained from giving a reason for recusal, no one can insist on the judge making such disclosures. Such discretion is absolute. In the instant case, by means of the application u/s 156(3) CrPC., the petitioner is seeking full disclosures by forcing the police to make inquiries from the learned Metropolitan Magistrate who, to ensure fairness in the trial, chose to recuse. Hence, the complaint case also ought to have been dismissed.
Judgment
Exercising the inherent powers of this Court u/s 482 CrPC., therefore, this Court quashes all proceedings in Complaint Case titled “Sherry George v. Ozone Spa Pvt Ltd & Ors” pending before the Special Judge at the stage of complainant’s evidence. So, the petition was dismissed along with the pending application with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the “Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee” within a week and the receipt be filed in the Registry.
Case Name: Sherry George vs Govt. Of NCT of Delhi
Citation: CRL.M.C. 1729/2020, CRL.M.A. 11942/2020
Bench: Justice Asha Menon
Decided on: 13th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
