Delhi High Court
Priyanka Nagpal vs Anil Kumar Sharma & Anr. on 9 May, 2016
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and Order : May 09, 2016
+ Crl. Rev. P. No. 284/2015
PRIYANKA NAGPAL
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Amrendra
Kumar, Advocates
versus
ANIL KUMAR SHARMA & ANR.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghei, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
%
P.S.TEJI, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A. No.7689/2016 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Crl. M.A. No.7687/2016 (Restoration) & Crl. M.A. No. 7688/2016
(Exemption from surrender)
1. By the application filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., the
petitioner seeks restoration of the main revision petition, which was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.04.2016. By another
application filed under Section 389(1) Cr. P.C., the
petitioner/applicant seeks exemption from surrendering before learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma in CC No.429/2013.
2. The application for seeking exemption from surrendering before
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, will only be of consequence if
the application for restoration (Crl. M.A. No. 7687/2016) is allowed.
Therefore, it is basically the fate of the main application for restoration
of the revision petition which shall decide the fate of the other
application.
3. Counsel for the applicant/petitioner is heard at length.
4. Perusal of the order sheet reveals that the main revision petition
came up for hearing before this Court on 14.05.2015 when, the
counsel for revisionist stated that the petitioner shall pay the amount
of Rs.6 lakhs as compensation to the complainant within a period of
six months and apart from this, the counsel for the petitioner further
stated that he shall deposit a fine of Rs.10,000/- as directed by the
impugned order by the next date. It was further stated that the
revisionist shall be depositing 15% of the cheque amount as costs with
the Delhi State Legal Services Authority in terms of decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H.,
(2010) 5 SCC 663, within a period of one month. Accordingly, on the
aforesaid submissions on behalf of the petitioner, the operation of the
impugned orders was directed to be stayed.
5. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 28.05.2015, the counsel for
the revisionist, on instructions submitted that the compensation
amount of Rs.6 lacs shall be paid to the respondent No. 1
(complainant) in two installments. The first installment of Rs.3 lacs
shall be paid on or before 31.08.2015 and the balance amount of Rs.3
lacs shall be paid by way of Demand Draft/Pay order, payable in Delhi
on or before 30.11.2015. The said offer was duly accepted by
respondent No. 1, who appeared in person on that day. The petitioner
was directed to deposit 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs
with Delhi State Legal Services Authority within a period of one week
and the matter was adjourned to 01.12.2015.
6. On 31.08.2015, an application for seeking extension of time for
making payment of first installment of Rs.3 lac to the respondent No.
1 was filed and vide order dated 01.12.2015, counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner contended that because of extremely
straightened financial circumstances, the schedule of payment as
directed by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2015 and 28.05.2015
could not be fulfilled and assured that by the next date, up to date
payment shall be made by the petitioner. Accordingly, considering the
assurance, the case was adjourned to 28.01.2016 and interim orders
were directed to continue.
7. When the matter came up for hearing on 07.04.2016, since the
petitioner did not comply with the order dated 14.05.2015, the stay of
operation of impugned orders passed by the Trial Court was directed
to be vacated. Copy of the order was directed to be sent to concerned
Court as well as the appellate Court. Thereafter, on 28.04.2016, the
counsel for petitioner sought to withdraw the main revision petition
(Crl. Rev. P. No.284/2015) and accordingly, the petitioner was
dismissed as withdrawn.
8. Now the petitioner has filed an application seeking restoration
of the main revision petition (Crl. Rev. P. No.284/2015) to its original
position.
9. The ground taken in the application for restoration of the main
revision petition (Crl. Rev. P. No.284/2015) is enumerated in para 2 of
the application, which reads as under:-
"That the applicant against the order dated 07.04.2016
passed in Crl. Rev. P. No. 284 of 2015 by this Court have
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by filing
S.L.P. (Crl.). But the order dated 28/04/2016 passed by
this Court in which the Ld. Counsel representing the
petitioner had withdrawn the Crl. Rev. P. No. 284 of
2015 does not permit the Petitioner to pursue before the
Supreme Court and hence the present application for
recalling of Order dated 28/04/2016 before this Court for
kind consideration."
10. Accordingly, the petitioner made a prayer for restoration of the
revision petition. The extract of prayer (a) as made in the application
is reproduced herein below:
"(a) Allow the Application of the Applicant/Petitioner
and the order dated 28/04/2016 may be re-called and
restore the Crl. Rev. P. No. 284 of 2015 to its Original
Position."
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that he
has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order dated
07.04.2016 on the withdrawal of the main revision petition, i.e., on
28.04.2016.
12. After going through the contents of the application and the
prayer made therein, this Court observes that the only ground which
the petitioner has taken for recalling the order dated 28.04.2016,
whereby the petitioner had withdrawn the main revision petition, is
that it will affect the case of the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that the moment when
the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn, this Court becomes
'functus officio over the revision petition. In such a scenario, this
Court does not find any ground for restoring the main petition,
particularly the prayer made for the recalling of the order dated 28th
April 2016 and restoration of the criminal revision 'to its original
position'.
13. Accordingly, the application for seeking restoration of the main
revision petition (Crl. M.A. No.7687/2016) is dismissed.
14. Resultantly, the application for seeking exemption from
surrendering before learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Crl. M.A.
No.7688/2016) is also dismissed as the main revision petition (Crl.
Rev. P. No.284/2015) already stands dismissed as withdrawn on
28.04.2016.
15. A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the petitioner.
P.S.TEJI, J
MAY 09, 2016
pkb
