Delhi High Court
Fazlur Rehman vs State Nct Of Delhi on 17 November, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3015/2011
% Judgment delivered on:15th November, 2011
FAZLUR REHMAN ..... Petitioner
Through :Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Adv.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through :Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Ld. APP for
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? NO
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide order dated 20.09.2011, following order was passed:
1. Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate is present in the Court. On
request, she has agreed to assist the court. Therefore, I appoint
her as amicus in this case.
2. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the Registrar of
this Court had received the instant petition on 27.08.2011 in the
form of a letter from jail. The same was placed before a
Committee on PIL, the said Committee vide its communication
dated 05.09.2011 was of the opinion that, the present
letter/petition be listed on the judicial side, this cannot be treated
as a PIL. Hence, the petition before this Court.
3. Ld. counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide this
petition the petitioner has prayed for the direction to the Court of
Sh. Vinod Yadav, CMM, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in the case
titled as State vs. Shalini Jayothi & Ors. (including the petitioner
Fazlur Rehman) in case FIR No.94/2003 under Section
387,506,120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 of PS Special Cell, New
Delhi for expediting the disposal of the aforesaid case, wherein
the case is pending since 2003 and was fixed for prosecution
evidence for 16.09.2011.
4. Ld. counsel for the petitioner further submits that Vide
this petition the petitioner has submitted that the complainant
Nivedan Bhardwaj R/o 4/2, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi lodged a
complaint with police station, Special Cell, with the allegation
that on 14.11.2003. He received a call on his mobile
No.9811355500 from a underworld gangster , namely, Fazlur
Rehman from mobile No.971507703816 demanding the ransom
of ì 50,00,000/- and directing him to arrange the same upto 18th
November, 2003.
5. Ld. counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the
basis of the above stated allegation the aforesaid case was
registered. During the investigation it was found that the
petitioner gave his alleged mobile number to complainant
Nivedan Bhardwaj to contact him on the mobile No.9810820800
belonging to Shalini Jayothi, who is the co-accused in the present
case. After her arrest in the year 2004, the present petitioner
was arrested in the present case on 29.08.2006 and since then
petitioner is in judicial custody. After the framing of charge on
22.03.2007, the mater was adjourned for recording of evidence
for 19.04.2007, since then the several opportunities have been
granted to the prosecution to conclude the evidence, however, the
prosecution failed to do so.
6. Ld. APP for State submits that in these circumstances, she
needs one week's time to verify the details and stage of the case.
7. Further submits that as it is mentioned in sub-para 1 at
page 6 of the petition, the co-accused earlier moved a Crl.M.C.
before this Court for expeditious trial of the case. This Court
directed the trial court to conclude the prosecution evidence upto
December, 2010.
8. Ld. APP for State further submits that from the petition it
is not clear by which Crl.M.C. of 2010, a case was filed and by
which order of this Court had the direction been passed in the
matter. Therefore, only after verification would she be able to
assist the Court.
9. In these circumstances, the trial court is directed to file
the status report before the next date of hearing as to why has
this matter has not been concluded; in spite of petitioner being
behind the bars for the last 05 years, whereas, the maximum
sentence under section 387 of Indian Penal Code, is for 07 years.
10. Renotify on 17th November, 2011.
2. Sh. Vinod Yadav, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari
Court, Delhi has filed the Status Report wherein, it is stated that there are
two accused persons in the present case namely Shalini Jyoti and Fazlur
Rehman. Accused Fazlur Rehman is a co-accused in seven other cases of
Special Cell, which are pending vide FIR no. 578/99, PS-Kotwali,
Kanpur, UP. Case FIR no. 125/2003, PS-Alambagh, Lucknow, UP and
CR no. 207/2005, PS-MPC, Kalyaan, Maharashtra. Accordingly the trial
court kept on receiving Production Warrants from other states for his
production for the cases pending there.
3. Further it is submitted the presence of the main prosecution
witness i.e. complainant Shri Nivedan Bhardwaj could be secured for
evidence only 20.11.2010. His evidence in the matter has been going on.
This witness most of the times remains out of Delhi in relation to his
business assignments. This court took up the matter on urgency basis and
fixed up three dates for trial i.e. 06.12.2010, 07.12.2010 and 08.12.2010
and it was directed that IO and ACP, Special Cell would make every
endeavour to serve summons upon the remaining witnesses by making
sincere efforts.
4. I note from the status report that for some time, Ld. ACMM could
not take up the matter on account of other administrative functions.
Some dates were given on account of pre-occupation in hearing
arguments in "Bofor's" case.
5. Ld. ACMM has assured that he will put all his endeavour to
conclude the trial within 6 months.
6. With this hope, I dispose of the petition as satisfied.
SURESH KAIT,J
NOVEMBER 17, 2011
jg
