Delhi High Court
Vijay Chandra vs State on 16 July, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. M.C. 2242/2010 and Crl.M.A. 8746-47/2010
Decided on 16.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
VIJAY CHANDRA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. J.C. Gupta, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for State.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482
Cr.P.C. IPC praying inter alia for grant of exemption from personal
appearance for a period of three months ending on 30.9.2010, in the trial
court in respect of the case on the basis of FIR No.272/2006 lodged by Ms.
Meenakshi Sharma, his sister-in-law, against his brother, mother and other
members of the family, under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC, registered with PS
Timarpur.
2. The petitioner is an employee with the Kumayun Mandal Vikas
Nigam Ltd., Nainital, Uttarakahand and is the organizer-in-charge for
conducting the pilgrimage to Kailash-Mansrovar and has been deputed by his
employer to conduct and organize the yatra this year.
3. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the
complaint lodged by his sister-in-law, Ms. Meenakshi Sharma on 11.6.2006,
a charge sheet was filed by the police on 2.3.2010, wherein family members
of the petitioner have been admitted to regular bail. Thereafter, an order for
arresting the petitioner was issued. As a result, the petitioner was
compelled to file an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions
Court, which was granted in his favour. It is the case of the petitioner that
he has been appearing before trial court and has been granted regular bail
on 5.3.2010. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 16.3.2010 and is now
fixed for 20.7.2010.
4. It is stated that in the meantime, the petitioner filed an
application before the trial court praying inter alia that he be exempted from
personal appearance on 22.5.2010 as he was busy on official duty.
However, on the said date, the trial court directed that the Managing
Director, Tourism from Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Nainital, be
summoned to explain as to why the petitioner was not permitted to attend
the court when the case was listed on the aforesaid date. As a result, the
exemption application of the petitioner from personal appearance was kept
pending. The petitioner states that he is compelled to undertake an
arduous journey of 27 hours from Dharchula to reach Delhi on each date. In
view of the above, the petitioner has been compelled to file the present
petition, seeking exemption from personal appearance before the trial court
in the aforesaid proceedings upto 30.9.2010, till the duty assigned to him in
respect of Kailash-Mansarovar Yatra is over.
5. Notice. Learned APP for the State accepts notice and states
that in view of the genuine difficulty expressed by the petitioner, he does not
seriously oppose the relief prayed for by the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the averments made in the present petition,
particularly, in view of the difficulty expressed by the petitioner in the
present petition pertaining to his organizing the Kailash-Mansarovar Yatra
2010, as per the directions of his employer, borne out by the order of the
deputation dated 19.05.2010 placed on the record, the prayer made in the
present petition is allowed. The petitioner is exempted from his personal
appearance before the trial court, till 30.9.2010, whereafter he shall
diligently appear before the aforesaid court, as and when a date is fixed.
7. The petition is disposed of along with the pending application.
Dasti.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JULY 16, 2010 JUDGE
sk
