H.K.Dua vs Jagat Singh
2012 Latest Caselaw 4214 Del

$~1
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CRL.M.C. 1862/2007

%                           Judgment delivered on: 17th July, 2012

      H.K.DUA                       ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr.N.B. Joshi and Mr. Purushottam
                  Mishra, Adv.
             Versus
    JAGAT SINGH                       ..... Respondent
                  Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with
                  Mr. Dinhar Takiar, Mr. Amit Singh Rathore and
                  Mr. Hemant Shah, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT


SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Crl. M.A. 6182/2012 in Crl. MC No.1862/2007

1. Vide the instant application, the applicant is seeking to pass an order expunging the remarks made against the applicant in the order dated 11.07.2011 and opening Para No. 1 of the judgment dated 08.08.2011 in the present petition.

2. For the sake of convenience, para No.1 of the judgment dated 08.08.2011 is reproduced below:-

"1. The matter was taken up on 11.07.2011 and the following order was passed:-

"The matter was called at about 11.00-11.30 am in the morning and no one was present on behalf of the respondent. This Court requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to contact the respondent's counsel.

Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner contacted on telephone No.23973030, stated to be not in existance. Another attempt made by the learned counsel for the petitioner at Tehsil Building, Chamber No. 17, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. The advocates occupying the said chamber informed that no such person is operating from the said chamber. This address and telephone are also indicated in the Bar Association Directory.

The order sheet reveals that as many as 13 times, neither the respondent nor counsel for the respondent appeared in this matter.

I note, vide order dated 21.07.2008 a notice of default was issued to Mr. Pramod K. Dubey, Advocate. Another notice was issued vide order dated 16.12.2008. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.04.2009 another notice was issued.

Today, even on second call, none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Having no other option, this Court is constrained to proceed in the absence of the respondent as the ld. Counsel is playing the trick of hide and seek."

3. It is stated in the instant application that the aforesaid petition was filed by petitioner Shri H.K. Dua for quashing of CC No. 213 of 1994 titled as Jagat Singh vs. Chief Editor, Indian Express and others under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Further stated that one Vinod Kumar Sharma had filed a Criminal Complaint before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House for commission of offence under section 500 of the IPC against various news agencies, editors, reporters. For quashing of the aforesaid Criminal Complaint, Shri Vivek Goenka, Chairman of the Board of Directors of

Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. had filed Criminal M.C. No.927/2007 entitled as Sh. Vivek Goenka vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of the Criminal Complaint No.7 of 2006. The applicant was engaged as a counsel for Vinod Kumar Sharma, respondent in the above mentioned Crl. MC No. 927/2007.

5. Thereafter, Shri Shekhar Gupta, Editor in Chief of Daily English Newspaper, Indian Express had also preferred a case before this Court being Crl. MC No.916/2007 for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.71 of 2006 titled Vinod Kumar Sharma vs. Shekhar Gupta under section 500 of IPC pending before the Court of learned MM, Patiala House, New Delhi. Apart from Shri Vivek Goenka and Shekhar Gupta, Shri Arun Poori and Shri Prabhu Chawla from newspaper India Today, Shri Madhusudhan Anand and Shri Arindam Sengupta from the Newspaper Times of India had also filed quashing petitions for quashing of the complaint filed under section 500 of the IPC by Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma.

6. It is further stated that this Court issued notice in all the quashing petitions filed on behalf of Shri Vivek Goenka, Shri Shekhar Gupta, Shri Prabhu Chawla, Shri Arun Poori, Shri Madhusudan Anand and Shri Arindam Sengupta.

7. The applicant Shri Pramod Kumar Dubey appeared as a counsel on behalf of Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma.

8. The present petition as well as all the other petitions for quashing of the complaint filed by Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma in the Court of ld. MM, Patiala House, New Delhi were listed together on 25.01.2008 before the Hon'ble Court of Justice (Retd.) Ms. Rekha Sharma, on the request made on

07.12.2007 by Shri N.B. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner in that matter.

9. It is further stated that the applicant was only representing the respondent, namely, Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma in some of the quashing petitions filed by different petitioners before this Court, but as all the matters were taken together, inadvertently the appearance of the applicant got marked in the Crl. MC No. 1862/2007 as counsel for the respondent, i.e., Jagat Singh who is not and was not the client of the applicant.

10. It is further stated that he never appeared nor had authority to appear on behalf of respondent Jagat Singh in the present matter in any Court, nor did he file his vakalatnama in Crl. MC No.1862 of 2007 to represent the respondent at any point of time.

11. It is also stated that the applicant never received any notice and he had no knowledge about the issuance of the court notice for appearance in the present case. Moreover, the address of Chamber No. 109, Lawyers Chambers, Delhi High Court has not been used by the applicant since about 2002 and hence the process report rightly recorded that he was not available at that address. And no service of notice had been made at 17, Lawyers Chamber, Tehsil Building, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.

12. It is further submitted that the applicant never been the advocate for Shri Jagat Singh either in the Complaint Case before the trial court or in the quashing petition before this Court, whereas the applicant had been appearing before this Court on behalf of Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma in all the quashing petitions as mentioned above.

13. The applicant has humbly submitted that non-appearance of the applicant before this Court in the present matter, when the matter was called,

was neither intentional nor deliberate but due the reasons mentioned above as well as the applicant was not the counsel of the respondent in the present matter nor he had any knowledge of the fact that notice has been issued in the present matter.

14. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the judgment dated 08.08.2011 has been reported and gross prejudice has been caused to the applicant from the observation made by this Court in the order dated 11.07.2011 as well as by the opening para No.1 of the judgment dated 08.08.2011.

15. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the applicant was enrolled with the Bar in the year 1995 and since then he has been diligently discharging his duties as a member of the Bar and has never made any default in appearance before the courts of law nor had played any trick of hide and seek and has due respect towards the courts of law.

16. The petitioner/non-applicant has filed short submissions and submitted that the counsel of the petitioner never had any acquaintance with the applicant Shri Pramod Kumar Dubey, Advocate. As a matter of fact, he has been assisted in context of this case by his associates.

17. It is further stated that on reviewing the order sheets it is possible that the appearance of Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, the present applicant, might have been wrongly noted as the Advocate for the respondent in this criminal petition.

18. As regards the averment that the applicant used Chamber No.109, Delhi High Court since 2002, this fact is neither known to him nor his associates and nor could be known to them. As a matter of fact, process has

been issued by the Registry of this Court itself possibly having obtained this address from the Bar Association Members Directory, which shows his Chamber as 17, Tis Hazari and his telephone No.23973030.

19. However, ld. Counsel appearing for non-applicant has submitted that if this Court considers it fit, the instant application may be allowed so that no prejudice is caused to the applicant in his career for no fault of him.

20. After hearing ld. Counsel for the parties, it has emerged that the name of the applicant has been wrongly noted on behalf of respondent in the present petition. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that neither the Advocate had played the trick of hide and seek nor he did not appear intentionally. Therefore, the observations made against the applicant are expunged and not be treated as part of the order / judgment dated 11.07.2011 and 08.08.2011. The same shall not come in his career in any manner.

21. Before parting with the order, I expect from all the law journals who reported the judgment mentioned above, to also report this order of their own or at the request of the applicant.

22. CM No. 6182/2012 stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

SURESH KAIT, J

JULY 17, 2012 RS/jg