Delhi High Court
Subhash vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 4 October, 2018
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.10.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 4928/2018 & Crl. M A No. 33544/2018
SUBHASH ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit
Pandey and Ms.Anushruti Tripathi, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Raghuvinder Varma, APP for State
Mr. Pawan Sharma with Mr. Ravinder Singh,
Advocate for the complainant along with
complainant, in person.
Insp. Mahinder Lal, PS:Govindpuri
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
04.10.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 31.08.2018 of the Revisional
Court dismissing the Review Petition filed by the petitioner
impugning the order dated 16.07.2018, whereby process under
Sections 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated
against the petitioner in FIR No. 193/2018.
2. Subsequent to the said orders, order dated 06.09.2018 has been
passed being a consequential order to the order dated 16.07.2018
declaring the petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends
that there was no cause for the Trial Court to initiate process under
section 82/83 CrPC and further to declare the petitioner as a
Proclaimed Offender.
4. Learned Senior counsel further contends that on 22.06.2018,
counsel for the petitioner was present in Court and petitioner was
directed to join investigation.
5. It is submitted that without requiring the petitioner to join
investigation, the Investigating officer on the same date moved an
application for issuance of non-bailable warrants against the
petitioner. Further, on 16.07.2018, an application was moved for
issuance of process under Sections 82/83 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure on the ground that warrants could not be executed against
the petitioner.
6. It is contended that no efforts were made to trace out the
petitioner and there was no notice directing the petitioner to join
investigation. Further, it is further submitted that simultaneous
process under Sections 82/83 is not permissible in law and the
impugned order shows complete non application of mind. It is
submitted that prior to an order under section 83 being passed court
has to record satisfaction that process under Section 82 has been
completed and sufficient time has been given to the proclaimed person
to appear before the Trial Court.
7. Learned Senior counsel further contends that the petitioner was
not aware of any non-bailable warrants having been issued. The
petitioner is willing to join investigation and as and when so required
by the Investigating Officer.
8. Learned APP for the State submits that there was due cause for
the Investigating Officer to seek initiation of process under Sections
82 and 83.
9. On perusal of the record, I am satisfied that due process as
mandated by Sections 82 and 83 was not followed prior to the
impugned orders being passed.
10. On 22.06.2018, petitioner was represented before the Trial
Court and the court directed the petitioner to join investigation at the
earliest, inter alia to specify the location for securing the CCTV
footage. No time or date was fixed by the Trial Court directing the
petitioner to join investigation.
11. Record does not reveal that any steps were taken by the
Investigating Officer after the order was passed requiring the
petitioner to join investigation and that the accused failed to comply
with the same. Further, record does not reveal the steps taken for
execution of the non-bailable warrants.
12. A composite order under Sections 82/83 is not permissible in
law. Prior to an order under section 83 being passed there has to be an
order under section 82 and the process as prescribed therein followed.
It is only after the court is satisfied that the process under section 82
has been followed and the circumstances so warrant that court can
pass an order under section 83 CrPC. Admittedly in the present case,
this course has not been adopted and court has passed a composite
order under section 82 and 83 CrPC.
13. Learned APP for the State submits that without getting into the
controversy, the petitioner be directed to appear before the
Investigating officer.
14. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.07.2018, the
non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner and the order dated
06.09.2018 are quashed. Petitioner is directed to appear before the
Investigating officer on 08.10.2018 at 4:00 P.M. at Police Station
Govind Puri.
15. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
16. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
OCTOBER 04, 2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
'prem'
