Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar Gupta vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 4 January, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Order reserved on 27th November, 2017
Order pronounced on 4th January, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 4520/2017 & Crl. M.A. No. 18054/2017 (Stay)
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA .............Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. B. Tripathi, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ...........Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Kr. Sharma, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC assailing
the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-04,
South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi wherein the application
of the petitioner seeking exemption from personal appearance was
dismissed and non-bailable warrants were issued against him.
2. The brief facts of the case are that vide order dated 01.05.2014, the
petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender in complaint case No.
1666/14 titled as "M/s. B. C. C. Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Gupta";
that the petitioner was arrested on 22.05.2014 and produced before the
concerned Trial Court where he was admitted to bail; that on the
direction of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, an FIR No.
No. 195/2014 under Section 174A IPC was registered at
CRL. M.C. 4520/2017 Page 1 of 3
Police Station - Greater Kailash; that the petitioner was admitted to
anticipatory bail on 23.08.2014 by the Court of Sessions and the
Chargesheet in the said case was filed on 16.12.2014.; that on
13.09.2017, the petitioner moved an application seeking exemption
from personal appearance which was allowed subject to cost of
Rs.3000/- and the matter was adjourned for 13.10.2017; that on
13.10.2017, the matter was adjourned for 31.10.2017 as lawyers were
abstaining from the work; that on 31.10.2017 the petitioner moved an
application seeking an exemption from personal appearance which
was dismissed and NBWs were directed to be issued against the
present petitioner. Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order
had been passed mechanically without considering the averments
made in the application; that non appearance of the petitioner on
31.10.2017 was neither deliberate nor intentional but for the reason
that his younger brother was critically ill due to failure of his kidneys
and the presence of the petitioner was required in the hospital to
attend to his ailing brother.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. Admittedly, FIR in the instant case had been registered against the
petitioner on the direction of the Trial Court on his arrest, who was
declared proclaimed offender in complaint case No. 1666/14 titled as
"M/s. B. C. C. Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Gupta". Earlier also
CRL. M.C. 4520/2017 Page 2 of 3
exemption from personal appearance was sought by the petitioner on
13.09.2017 which was allowed subject to cost of Rs.3,000/-. On
31.10.2017, the petitioner again remained absent and moved another
application seeking exemption from personal appearance on the
ground to attend his ailing brother. He also failed to deposit the cost
of Rs.3,000/- in compliance of order dated 13.09.2017. The petitioner
failed to abide by the order passed by the Trial Court despite having
been declared a proclaimed offender.
6. In the above background, the order under challenge does not call for
any interference.
7. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending application is
dismissed.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
JANUARY 04, 2018
gr
