Delhi High Court
R K Jain vs The State on 14 March, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 14th March, 2019
+ W.P.(CRL) 1383/2018 and Crl.M.A. No. 8410/2018 (stay)
R K JAIN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Petitioner in person.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel
with Mr. Jamal Akhtar and Mr.
Amanpreet Singh, Advocates with
Insp. Satyabir Singh, SI Dhananjay
Dubey.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks following prayers:-
a) Issue a writ of Mandamus thereby directing the ld. CMM (E)
Ms Shivali Sharma at Karkardooma District Courts, for:
(i) Summoning the material witness PW-9 and
conducting evidence/allowing the petitioner to
cross-examine the said witness as per prescribed
Criminal Procedure and Indian Evidence Act,
(ii) Following the pronouncements of superior courts
which bind the trial court, including those
specifically relied upon, thereby expeditiously
concluding the 17-year-old proceedings being
dragged illegally, by glaring abuse of process of
law well-documented, and without compromising
the livelihood of the petitioner any further, who
has professional/livelihood commitments out-
station Mondays through Wednesdays,
(iii) Filing compliance report of the same by setting a
short time-frame for the same
(iv) Taking action as per law against the identified
culprits for their well-documented illegalities, by
registration of FIR against each of the identified
wrong-doers, for the cognizable serious
offences/Fraud indulged in, profusely documented,
punishable under Indian Penal Code, besides
under Prevention of Corruption Act for Criminal
Misconduct so far shirked by successive transferee
trial court presiding officers,, to promote justice
and uphold Rule of Law.
(b) pass appropriate orders against trial court for indulging
in Contempt of own Court by illegal arbitrary acts under color
of power detailed in the application, and also for wilfully
refusing to follow the mandate of Statute/Code of Criminal
Procedure and also the Indian Evidence Act, as also the
pronouncements of supervisory courts, thereby managing to
drag the fraud/illegal proceedings for nearly 18 (eighteen)
years already, thereby not only substantially affecting the
administration of justice but actually subverting the very
judicial process, by infringing upon the Legal and
Constitutional rights of petitioner under Article 21 of the
Constitution and further serious illegality proposed to be
indulged in on 5/4/2018, in worst bias/violation of Principles of
Natural Justice and Contravention of the Law of Land, by
proceeding to record the statement of petitioner on 5/4/2018,
after illegally and prejudicially closing the PE, without
allowing petitioner to cross-examine material witness PW-9,
instead making PW3 to depose as PW9, by worst abuse of
power and subversion of established judicial procedure, calling
for stern action, not merely reprimand.
(c) award Compensation by way of Punitive Damages to the
petitioner for wilfully harassing him even after nearly 18
(eighteen) years of illegal proceedings ignoring documented
fraud of complainant ahlmad ab-initio, subverting the judicial
process, thereby dragging the fraud proceedings and managing
to delay the conclusion of the trial by such modus operandi,
ignoring the judicial mandate for promoting Justice and not
Fraud, devastating his personal and professional life/livelihood,
besides for defaming him and his family, and even consuming
his beloved parents in the process by such Fraud upon Fraud in
the name of law, an amount Rupees Fifty lacs which is most
reasonable amount, keeping in view the hardship put to/gone
through even after 18(eighteen) years of documented fraud
upon fraud, and value of human life which is priceless, snuffed
out by fraud, the same could be directed for being realized from
the wrong-doers or as deemed fit and proper.
(d) award litigation Costs an amount ₹30,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Thousand) only, Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand)
already expended towards taking legal opinion, drafting as also
typing, photocopying, travel, and other miscellaneous expenses
already incurred, and another Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) to be incurred in pursuing the proceedings and
obtaining certified copies etc.
2. The petitioner in the petition claims that he is facing trial in FIR No.
382/01 registered at PS Anand Vihar which has dragged on till date, the
wrong doers be identified and action be taken against them. From the facts
as noted in the petition the basic grievance of the petitioner is that during the
course of trial besides Ahlmad of the Court, namely, Vijay Kumar Marwah
who was a witness and examined as PW-3, the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate was also a witness and instead of said witness again as PW-9
Vijay Kumar Marwah was examined.
3. This Court has perused the testimony of Vijay Kumar Marwah as
PW-3 and as PW-9 which deals with two different facets of the trial and
whether Vijay Kumar Marwah is competent to be examined as PW-9 instead
of the Magistrate is not an issue which can be decided in a writ petition and
would be in the realm appreciation of evidence. Further it may be noted that
in the cross-examination of Vijay Kumar Marwah when he appeared as PW-
9 no such objection has been taken that he is incompetent to depose of the
facts for which learned Metropolitan Magistrate was cited as a witness.
Hence the prayer (a) (i) of the petitioner in the present petition asking
summoning of the material witness PW-9 and permitting the petitioner to
cross-examine the said witness is not maintainable before this Court.
4. As noted above the remaining prayers relate to expeditious conclusion
of the proceedings. Learned Standing Counsel for the State has handed over
a compilation of various order sheets both of the Trial Court as well as
Revisional Courts which show that the witnesses are appearing before the
Trial Court and being examined, however, time is being spent in their cross-
examination and filing of various Revision Petitions. The matter was
pending before the learned Trial Court for recording of the statement of the
petitioner, however, on each date repeated adjournments were sought on the
ground that the present writ petition was pending.
5. The petitioner who appears in person states that his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. has already been recorded, hence this Court finds no
ground to direct expeditious disposal of the trial because the prosecution
evidence as well as statement of the petitioner having already been recorded
and the trial now only awaits defence evidence if any to be led by the
petitioner. Further on the facts of the case without the trial having been
concluded, the petitioner has not made out any case for granting of
compensation or damages.
6. Petition and application are dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
MARCH 14, 2019
'yo'
