Bhavika Bharti vs State & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4777 Del

$~15
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              CRL.Rev.P.No.393/2011

%              Judgment delivered on:26th September,2011

BHAVIKA BHARTI                                      ..... Petitioner
                                Through : Mr.Nitin Khanna, Adv.
                      versus
STATE & ANR.                                     ..... Respondent
                                Through : Mr.C.S. Chauhan, Adv,
                                proxy for Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP
                                for State/Respondent No.1.
                                Mr.R.D.Tyagi and Ms.Sangeeta
                                Tyagi, Advs for respondent No.2.

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 NO
        in the Digest?

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. With the consent of counsel for parties, present petition

taken up for disposal.

2. Vide order dated 06.09.2011, following order was

passed by this Court:-

"1. Vide order dated 26.02.2011, the respondent No. 2 was granted bail with the condition that he shall be released on bail

subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned MM/ Duty MM. It was further directed that the applicant shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and in this regard the investigating officer shall be serving upon the applicant notice in that regard at least 10 days before requiring him to join investigation. It was further directed that within 21 days of returning back to Chennai, the applicant shall be filing his affidavit with IO/SHO PS Kirti Nagar mentioning therein his office address and residential address at Chennai.

2. Vide order dated 27.10.2010, the matter was referred to Mediation Cell on 30.10.2010. Accordingly, the parties appeared before the Mediation Cell on the said date, till then, the protection against arrest was given to respondent till 26.02.2011.

3. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.02.2011, the respondent was admitted to regular bail.

4. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 moved the application for release of the passport and permission to go abroad, the same was

dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2011 on the ground that in the order of Sessions Court there was no direction to hand over or release the passport at the time of granting bail to the accused/respondent, therefore, the application of respondent No. 2 was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.05.2011 passed by learned MM, respondent No. 2 preferred a Revision Petition before the learned Sessions Court.

6. Vide order dated 04.06.2011, the Revision petition was allowed and the order of the learned Trial Judge dated 12.05.2011 was set aside and the Revision Petition was allowed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of passing of the order in Revision Petition, neither the petitioner was summoned nor was heard and in the absence of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 04.06.2011 was passed.

8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the passport is released to the respondent, he may flee from India, thereafter, it would be difficult to bring him back to India."

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that vide

communication dated 02.09.2011, Tata Consultancy

Services, PTI Building, 4, Parliament Street, New Delhi the

said company has offered him a deputation to USA to be

posted at Atlanta, Georgia, for seven months. If the

respondent No.2 does not accept this offer or does not

complete the deputation on return to India, then it is

essential to the business success of Tata Consultancy

Services that assignment for which the deputation is made

be completed by the employee and the employee returned

to India on termination or expiry of deputation in accordance

with this agreement then the respondent has acknowledged

and agreed that any action by employee in leaving or

abandoning any assignment on this deputation before its

completion without TCS expressed written approval shall

constitute material breach by employee of the terms and

conditions of the agreement. The respondent has further

acknowledged and agreed that TCS may suffer significance

damages as a result of which, such breach or termination by

this agreement by employee or abandonment of the

services by employee and in such cases, employee shall

liable to TCS for all such damages.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits

that respondent No.2 has been in USA for 10 months from

March to December 2008 and after completion of that

period, he returned to India. Further submits that that this

time also after completing the aforesaid period of 07 months

abroad, he will return to India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there

are chances of respondent No.2 flee from India just to avoid

proceedings going on against respondent No.2.

5. Keeping the aforesaid facts and circumstances into

view, I direct learned Trial Court to release the passport of

the respondent No.2 on the following conditions:-

1. Respondent No.2 is allowed to leave India for a

period of seven months from the date of his

departure.

2. He shall leave the address and particulars of stay

at USA with learned Trial Court.

3. He may withdraw his salary except to the amount

of ` 15,000/- per month.

4. He shall report back to learned Trial Court on

completion of the above stated period.

5. He shall surrender his passport with learned Trial

Court on completion of abroad assignment.

6. The amount of `15,000/- per month to be deducted

from the salary of respondent No.2 is being directed without

prejudice to the rights and contentions of parties, just to

secure the interest of petitioner, who is dependent being

legally wedded wife of respondent No.2 and maintaining a

male child of one year age; since the proceedings under

Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code are pending before the

Trial Court.

7. Before leaving the India, respondent No.2 shall file his

reply before learned Trial Court and he would be exempted

through counsel Mr.R.D. Tyagi, Advocate.

8. Vide order dated 06.09.2011, proceedings before the

learned Trial Court were stayed. Since, there is no need to

continue the stay, therefore, I direct that learned Trial Court

to proceed further with the complaint being filed by the

petitioner.

9. Though, Tata Consultancy Services is not a party to the

present proceedings, since, respondent No.2 has shown offer

dated 02.09.2011, therefore, Tata Consultancy Services- the

employer of respondent No.2 is hereby authorised to deduct

an amount of `15,000/- per month for the period of abroad

deputation of respondent, till further orders.

10. In case of change of any company either while

stationing at USA or otherwise, then the Tata Consultancy

Services shall not issue No Objection Certificate or

Experience Certificate to the respondent No.2 without the

permission of this Court.

11. Copy of order be also sent to Tata Consultancy Services

for compliance.

12. Keeping the above discussion into view, no further

orders are required to be passed, therefore, Criminal

Revision Petition No.393/2011 is disposed of in above terms.

13. In view of above, Criminal M.A.No.11373/2011 and

Criminal M.A.No.10497/2011 renders infructuous and

accordingly stand disposed of.

14. No order as to costs.

15. Copy of order be given dasti under signature of the

Court Master to both the parties.

SURESH KAIT, J

September 26, 2011 Mk