Delhi High Court
Viqar Ahmed vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 2017
$ 12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 16th May, 2017
+ CRL.L.P. 111/2016 and Crl. M.A. 3138/2016
VIQAR AHMED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shaad Anwar and Ms.
Shobhan, Advocates
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for R-1 /
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. By the petition at hand, the petitioner prays for leave under
Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) to
be granted to file a criminal appeal to challenge the order dated
03.10.2015 of the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate passed on the
file of the complaint case no.93/1/15 whereby his complaint was
dismissed for non-appearance, the consequence whereof was that the
second respondent who had been summoned by an earlier order stood
acquitted.
2. The record has been perused and the learned counsel for the
petitioner has been heard at length.
3. In the opinion of this court, these proceedings are an abuse of
the judicial process and, therefore, there is no good reason as to why
leave should be granted. The reasons may be set out hereafter.
4. The criminal complaint, the revival whereof essentially is
sought by the petition at hand, was instituted on 19.05.1998 seeking
criminal action against three persons shown in the array, the second
respondent herein being shown as the second accused, the others being
Mahender Pal Jain (father of the second respondent) and a police
official named named SI Ved Prakash Jha.
5. The record of the trial court indicates that the petitioner took his
own time in adducing evidence in the pre-summoning inquiry under
Sections 200, 202 Cr. PC. He examined himself as the first and
solitary witness (CW-1) on 12.12.2007, nine years after filing the
complaint. This resulted in an order in the nature of one under Section
190 read with Section 204 Cr. PC being passed on 19.03.2013
whereby the second respondent was summoned for offences
punishable under Section 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC). After the summoning order had been passed, the plaintiff did
not take effective steps. Eventually, when the presence of the second
respondent had been secured, the question of supply of documents
persisted which, besides certain other reasons attributable to the
second respondent, kept the matter hanging fire. On 05.02.2015, it
was noted that though the complainant had indicated readiness to
supply the deficient documents, the deficiency had not been made
good.
6. Finally on 03.06.2015, supply of documents was completed and
the matter adjourned for pre-charge evidence to 09.07.2015. On the
said date, the complainant would not appear and the matter was
adjourned though also for the reason of absence of the presiding judge.
7. On 19.08.2015, there was no one present for the complainant.
The Magistrate was indulgent and issued court notice. On 03.10.2015,
exemption was sought on the ground that the petitioner had gone to
Pakistan to meet some relative. No documents in support were
submitted. The Magistrate was not satisfied and thus declined to grant
exemption. Noticeably no other witness was produced or examined.
Going by the allegations in the complaint, the incident had occurred
within the knowledge of public at large.
8. The present petition was not filed within the period of
limitation. In the given facts and circumstances, this court is not
satisfied with the prayer for condonation of delay.
9. Thus, the petition being barred and also devoid of substance, it
is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MAY 16, 2017
yg
