Delhi High Court
Himanshu Jain vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 14 September, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 14th September, 2015
+ BAIL APPLICATION NO.244/2013
HIMANSHU JAIN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv.
Versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Kamal Kr. Ghei,
Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State.
Mr. Munish Kumar Singh,
Advocate for the
Complainant with
Complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A.No.6803/2015 (for cancellation of anticipatory bail)
1. Vide the instant application filed under Section 439(2) read with
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1982, the
applicant/complainant seeks cancellation of the anticipatory bail of the
petitioner.
2. Vide order dated 12.02.2013, interim protection was granted to the
petitioner subject to his joining the investigation as and when directed by
the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, on 19.02.2013 it was recorded by
this Court that the petitioner and the complainant have settled their
disputes and the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs. 12 lacs to the
complainant as full and final settlement of all her claims.
3. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of
Rs. 4 lacs with the Registrar General of this Court within two weeks for
keeping the same in a fixed deposit, which shall be released to the
complainant at the time of quashing of the FIR. Further amount of Rs. 4
lacs will be given to the complainant at the time of recording of the
statement for first motion and the balance amount of Rs. 4 lacs will be
paid to the complainant at the time of recording of the statement for
second motion for divorce by mutual consent.
4. It is not in dispute that the complainant has received the total
amount of Rs.12 lacs and vide order dated 05.03.2013, this Court allowed
the petition and directed the Investigating Officer to release the petitioner
on bail in the event of his arrest.
5. However, preceding facts giving rise to the instant application
seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail are necessary, which are as
follows.
6. An application bearing Crl. M.A. No.4506/2015 seeking
cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner was moved by
the applicant/complainant on the ground that the petitioner was not
coming forward to sign the petition for Second Motion and was adopting
tactics in order to avoid the payment of remaining amount of Rs.4 Lacs
which was to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant at the time of
recording the statement of second motion. This fact has been recorded in
order dated 20.04.2015.
7. Thereafter, on 22.04.2015, the petitioner and the complainant were
present before the Court and the petitioner had handed over the signed
copy of the second motion petition to be filed before the learned Trial
Court for getting the divorce decree by way of mutual consent to the
learned counsel for complainant, who stated that the same would be filed
within one week. The petitioner undertook to provide his photographs,
vakalatnama of the Advocate appearing before the trial court when the
second motion is taken up.
8. As recorded further, the second motion as per the settlement was
supposed to file in the month of October, 2014 and there was delay of
about more than six months in signing the second motion on behalf of the
petitioner. Accordingly, while disposing of the application bearing Crl.
M.A. No.4506/2015, the interim protection was made absolute, subject to
cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the complainant within one week from
that date in lieu of harassment suffered by her and also for the reason that
as of today the respondent has not received the remaining amount of Rs.4
Lacs despite of expiry of seven months.
9. Since the petitioner did not comply with the directions passed by
this Court, the applicant/complainant filed the instant application bearing
Crl. M.A. No.6803/2015 for cancellation of the bail granted to the
petitioner, wherein vide order dated 06.05.2015, notice through concerned
SHO was issued to the petitioner for 20.05.2015. On that date, this Court
was informed that the main petition was coming up for hearing before the
learned Trial Court on 23.05.2015. Accordingly, petitioner had
undertaken to appear before the learned Trial Court so that appropriate
order may be passed in that regard.
10. Since neither the undertaking given to the Court was complied with
nor the cost of Rs.50,000/- as directed vide order dated 22.04.2015 was
paid to the complainant, however, vide order dated 30.07.2015, the
unconditional apology of the petitioner was accepted by this Court subject
to further cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid in favour of the complainant
before 12 Noon of the very next day, i.e., 31.07.2015, which was done
accordingly.
11. The complainant is personally present in Court and submits that the
petitioner is harassing her on one pretext or the other and despite having
been given numerous undertakings and assurances to this Court, the
petitioner has not yet completed the second motion for divorce by mutual
consent, which is still pending before the learned Trial Court.
12. In view of the above recorded facts and considering the conduct of
the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not
entitled to the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated
05.03.2013 and made absolute on 22.04.2015.
13. The petitioner has been playing hide and seek with this Court. He
has no respect for the Court. He is taking the Courts for granted.
Therefore, he does not deserve any leniency or sympathy. Accordingly,
the interim protection granted to the petitioner vide aforenoted orders is
hereby recalled.
14. In view of the above, the instant application is allowed.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015/sb
