Delhi High Court
Shubh Arora & Ors vs State on 26 August, 2014
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3832/2014
SHUBH ARORA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Harsh Bora and Mr. Nikhil
Ahuja, Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State.
ASI Shri Ram PS Hari Ram.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. Nos. 13120-21/2014 (for exemption)
Exemption applications, as prayed for, are allowed, subject to
all just exceptions.
Both these applications are disposed off.
Crl. M.C.3832/2014 & Crl. M.A.13119/2014 (for stay)
1. Issue notice.
2. Counsel for the State accepts notice.
3. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, has been moved by the petitioners seeking
modification of order dated 20.08.2014 passed by Metropolitan
Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, in a case titled State versus Shubh
Arora & Others in FIR No.350/2012 registered under 498A/406/34
IPC at Police Station Hari Nagar, Delhi, at the instance of
complainant Ms. Mona Khurana.
4. The petitioners are also aggrieved of the orders passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate on 02.08.2014 whereby non-bailable
warrants were directed to issue to secure the presence of the
petitioners before that Court on 01.09.2014 in that matter. On
20.08.2014, the said non-bailable warrants were stayed till 01.09.2014
on an application moved on behalf of the petitioners/accused persons
seeking their cancellation, and the matter was posted for that date for
appearance of the petitioners and furnishing of bail bonds. It is
submitted that as a matter of fact, the matter between the parties
primarily concerns a family dispute, now amicably settled; and a
Memorandum of Understanding has also been executed between the
parties setting down all the terms thereof on 06.03.2014. A copy of
the Memorandum of Understanding is annexed to this petition.
5. Counsel for the petitioners further states that out of the total
amount of Rs.16.5 lacs envisaged therein, an amount of Rs.8.5 lacs
already stands paid. Furthermore, a petition for divorce by mutual
consent has also been moved under Section 13B (1) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage being HMA
no.559/2013 on 03.12.2013. In that matter, orders on the First Motion
petition have been passed by the Court on 10.01.2014. The Joint
Second Motion petition is also stated to have been duly filed, and is
now posted for consideration on 06.09.2014. Learned counsel for the
petitioners points out that as a matter of fact the impugned orders, as
well as the order dated 02.08.2014 directing the issuance of non-
bailable warrants against the petitioners, came to be issued because
counsel for the petitioners recorded the wrong date on the previous
date of hearing i.e. on 09.05.2014 when the matter was taken up by
the Link Metropolitan Magistrate, and was under the impression that
the matter has been adjourned for 21.08.2014 instead of 02.08.2014.
6. It is obvious that the orders directing issuance of non-bailable
warrants to secure the presence of the petitioners on 02.08.2014, as
well as the subsequent orders dated 20.08.2014, directing the
petitioners to appear on 01.09.2014 furnishing bail bond etc. came to
be passed in somewhat peculiar circumstances of this case and
deserve to be set aside.
7. Consequently, both the said orders dated 02.08.2014 and
20.08.2014 are set aside. The petitioners to now appear before the
Magistrate on 23.09.2014 as originally directed. It would be open to
the petitioners to enter appearance on that date through counsel after
moving an appropriate application on their behalf before the next
date before the Magistrate, who shall consider it as per law.
8. The petition along with Crl. M. A. No.13119/2014 (for stay)
stand disposed off accordingly.
9. Dasti.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
AUGUST 26, 2014
An
