Delhi High Court
Brij Lal Jindal vs Archana Kumari Jindal & Anr. on 19 July, 2011
Author: V.K.Shali
* 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.
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/
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:
"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
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.
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
