Delhi High Court
Prashant Kumar Umrao vs State & Ors on 29 November, 2018
$~19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 29th November, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 1096/2016 and Crl.M.A.4697/2016
PRASHANT KUMAR UMRAO ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Roopam proxy counsel for
Mr. R.P.Luthra, Advocate
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, standing counsel
with Mr. K.S. Ahuja, APP for the
State with Insp. Bhushan Azad, SI
Yogesh Kumar & Mr. Chaitanya
Gosain, Mr. Jamal Akhtar &
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The third respondent had approached this court for certain
reliefs vis-à-vis the case arising out of FIR No.110/2016 of Police
Station Vasant Kunj North, involving offences punishable under
Sections 124-A/120-B/34/147/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
by Writ Petition (Crl.) No.558/2016. A learned Single Judge of this
court, by order dated 02.03.2016, admitted the said party to interim
bail, subject to certain conditions. Three petitions came to be filed in
the wake of the said order, including the present petition, the other
being Crl.M.C.1094/2016 and Crl.M.C.1095/2016, the first said
petition also being by the same petitioner at hand, the second said
petition being of Vineet Jindal. By Crl.M.C.1094/2016 and
Crl.M.C.1095/2016, the prayer made was for the interim bail granted
to the third respondent by the aforementioned order to be cancelled.
The said two other petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge
of this court by a common order dated 11.08.2016.
2. The petition at hand praying for initiation of action under
Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) against
second and third respondents, however, has remained pending, the
contentions for the aforementioned prayer having arisen out of the
same proceedings as aforesaid.
3. The matter was adjourned on the last date of hearing on the
request of the counsel for the petitioner, he having pleaded personal
difficulty. When the matter is taken up today, a proxy appears with
similar request on behalf of the counsel. There is no indefinite right to
adjournments, just for the asking. The matters cannot be kept pending
at the choice, whims or caprice of the parties. There is no good reason
why counsel should not appear and assist.
4. Having heard the learned standing counsel for the State and
having gone through the record, this court finds no merit or substance
in the petition.
5. The prayer in the petition is founded on the basis of pleadings in
(para 14 of) the writ petition, wherein order dated 02.03.2016 was
passed. It appears that the said writ petition was supported by affidavit
of the second respondent who was prosecuting the matter as pairokar
for the third respondent in those proceedings. All that was mentioned
in the relevant para was an assertion on behalf of the third respondent
that he had committed no offence and that the case of the police
against him was founded on wild or baseless allegations, he being a
proud citizen of India having always affirmed his faith in the
Constitution of India, he claiming the rights thereunder.
6. These averments in the writ petition do not make out a case of
perjury as is allayed. The court, even otherwise, does not find it
expedient or in the interest to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it
under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The least that can be said is that the petition
is frivolous and ill-advised.
7. The petition and the application filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 29, 2018
vk
