Abdul Rehman vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 3288 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

    +    CRL. REV. PET. No.279/2009 & Crl.M.As. No.5442/2009,
               8299/2009, 394/2010 and 3417/2010


                                               Decided on 15.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
ABDUL REHMAN                                         ..... Petitioner
                        Through : Petitioner in person.

                  versus


STATE                                            ..... Respondent

Through : Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for State.

Mr. G.D. Gandhi, Adv.

CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     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

HIMA KOHLI, J. ( Oral )

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter

alia for setting aside the order dated 13.5.2009 passed by the learned

ADJ in Civil Suit No.227/2008 entitled 'Rajesh Duggal vs. UOI &

Ors.' (Annexure P-3).

2. In the aforesaid order, the learned ADJ observed that the

petitioner(defendant No.5 in the Court below) tried to obstruct the

proceedings of the court, raised his voice, used intemperate language

in court and that the court thus took cognizance against him under

Section 345 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, an opportunity to show cause was

granted to the petitioner as to why he not be punished under the

aforesaid provision and the matter was adjourned for half an hour, to

enable him to submit his reply.

3. The case was again taken up at 12.50 PM and it was

observed that the petitioner/defendant No.5 did not appear despite the

matter being called and instead, Shri Shad Anwar, Advocate appeared

and stated that he was unaware of the non-appearance of the

petitioner/defendant No.5. In the absence of any reply to the notice

to show cause, the learned ADJ proceeded to punish the

petitioner/defendant No.5 by imposing a fine of Rs.200/- upon him and

in default of payment of fine, directed that he had to face simple

imprisonment for a term of one month. He further directed that the

fine would have to be paid in the course of the day. However, in the

interest of justice, further period of one hour was granted to the

petitioner/defendant No.5 to appear in the court at 2.00 PM, to face

the punishment as awarded in the said order.

4. At 2.25 PM, the counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.5

appeared and a reply was submitted, which did not bear the signatures

of the petitioner/defendant No.5, but only that of his counsel. The

learned ADJ held that the reply could not be looked at and the same

was rejected. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has

filed the present petition.

5. On the very first date, i.e., on 14.5.2009, the statement of

the petitioner was recorded to the effect that he had no intention

either to obstruct the proceedings of the court or in either way to show

disrespect in any manner whatsoever. He also submitted that an oral

show cause notice was issued to him and thereafter, half an hour was

granted to him to file his reply. Vide order dated 14.5.2010, while

issuing notice in the present petition, operation of the impugned order

was stayed. Thereafter, appearance was entered on behalf of the

respondent. It is noted in the order dated 12.3.2010 that counsel for

the petitioner volunteered to deposit the fine of Rs.200/-, without

prejudice to the grounds of challenge laid in the present petition. In

view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the petitioner, it

was directed that the fine be deposited within one week, failing which

the trial court would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in

accordance with law. Counsel for the petitioner appeared on the next

date of hearing, i.e., on 22.3.2010, to state that the fine amount was

deposited on 18.3.2010.

6. Today, the petitioner, who appears in person, tenders an

unqualified apology for the incident which occurred on 13.5.2009 and

states that he has the highest respect and regard for the court and

had no intention to obstruct the court proceedings or to lower the

dignity of the Court. He specifically seeks to withdraw the remarks

made by him against the Presiding Officer in para 5 of the petition, as

contained in the last sentence at page 3, spilling over to first sentence

at page 4 of the appeal paper book. The petitioner assures the Court

that he shall be more careful in future and shall not indulge in any

conduct which amounts to lowering the dignity of the Court, or results

in obstructing the court proceedings.

7. Having regard to the aforesaid unqualified apology tendered

by the petitioner and in view of the fact that the fine of Rs.200/-,

imposed on the petitioner, stands deposited, the present proceedings

are brought to an end. The apology of the petitioner is accepted. The

remarks made by the petitioner, as contained in the last sentence of

para 5 at page 3, spilling over to first sentence at page 4 of the appeal

paper book, stand expunged.

The petition is disposed of along with the pending

applications.

                                                           (HIMA KOHLI)
JULY    15, 2010                                             JUDGE
sK