Delhi High Court
D K Associates vs Mohan on 22 December, 2011
Author: M. L. Mehta
$~1 to 3 & 6
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 22.12.2011
+ CRL.M.C. 4167/2011
D K ASSOCIATES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sunil Kumar Bharti, Advocate with
Ms.Kumkum Bhatt, Advocate.
versus
CHANDER BHAN ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
With
CRL.M.C. 4168/2011
D K ASSOCIATES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sunil Kumar Bharti, Advocate with
Ms.Kumkum Bhatt, Advocate.
versus
RAJINDER PRASAD ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
With
CRL.M.C. 4169/2011
D K ASSOCIATES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sunil Kumar Bharti, Advocate with
Ms.Kumkum Bhatt, Advocate.
versus
PHOOL SINGH & ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
And
CRL.M.C. 4210/2011
D K ASSOCIATES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sunil Kumar Bharti, Advocate with
Ms.Kumkum Bhatt, Advocate.
Crl. M.Cs. 4167/11, 4168/11, 4169/11 & 4210/11 Page 1 of 4
versus
MOHAN ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
ORDER
% 22.12.2011
1. In these petitions under Section 482 CrPC, a short legal question that has
been raised is with regard to the power of the Metropolitan Magistrate to impose
costs in the criminal cases. In all these cases, the learned Metropolitan
Magistrates had imposed costs on the complainants on account of non appearance
of the complainants or their counsel on various dates. Some of those orders were
assailed in revisions before the court of ASJs, who maintained the orders of
Magistrates. Through the orders assailed are interlocutory, but since a question of
law arises, these petitions are entertained for hearing.
2. The contention that has been raised by the petitioner's counsel is that the
Magistrate has no power to impose cost upon the complainant in the criminal
cases. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the judgment of this court in Commissioner of Customs Vs. State & Anr.,
177(2011) Delhi Law Times 229.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. With regard to the aforesaid
decision relied upon the petitioner, it is noted that the provisions of Section 309
CrPC did not come to the notice of this court in that case. Section 309 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure empowers the Magistrate to postpone or adjourn the
proceedings. This Section empowers the Magistrate to exercise this power, but
subject to certain conditions and restrictions prescribed therein. The relevant
provisions for the present controversy are in Sub-Section (2) and Explanation 2 of
section 309 CrPC. These read as under:
"309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.--
....
(2) If the court after taking cognizance of an offence, or
commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to
postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it
may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or
adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it
considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused
if in custody:
Explanation 2.--- The terms on which an adjournment or
postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the
payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused."
4. A conjoint and plain reading of Sub-Section (2) and Explanation 2 of the
Section would reveal that the Magistrate enjoys the powers to postpone or adjourn
the case from time to time on such terms as he may think fit and reasonable. Of
course, he would be required to record the reasons for adjourning or postponing
the matter. The adjournment or postponement may be on such terms which as per
Explanation 2 in appropriate cases may be imposition of cost on the prosecution or
the accused. The prosecution would also mean and include the complainant in a
complaint case. Having seen that the Magistrate enjoyed the power of imposing
the cost on the complainant under Sub-Section (2) read with Explanation 2 of
Section 309 CrPC, I do not see any impropriety or illegality in the orders of
learned M.Ms or that of the ASJs.
5. In view of above, all the petitions are accordingly dismissed in limini with
costs of Rs. 5000/- in each case. The copy of this order may be circulated to the
Judges/Magistrates of the Subordinate judiciary.
M.L. MEHTA,J
DECEMBER 22, 2011
akb
