Veena Pittie vs State
2020 Latest Caselaw 608 Del

$~44
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                  Date of decision: 29.01.2020
+      CRL.M.C. 6603/2019
       VEENA PITTIE                                        ..... Petitioner
                          Through       Mr.Kailash Vasudev & Mr.P.C. Sen,
                                        Sr. Advs. with Mr.Sidharth Joshi,
                                        Ms.Bindu Saxena, Mr.Dhruv Saxena,
                                        Ms.Aparajita Swarup, MS.Ambaree,
                                        Mr.Rajat Prajapati & Mr.Shantanu
                                        Rathor, Advs.

                          versus

       STATE                                              ..... Respondent
                          Through       Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State.
                                        SI Mahesh Kumar PS Nabi Karim.
                                        Mr.Prince Arora, Adv. for
                                        complainant /R-2.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                          J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

Crl. M.A. 43179/2019

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

Crl.M.C. 6603/2019 & Crl.M.A. 43178/2019

3. The present petition is preferred under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

1973, against the impugned order dated 19.10.2019 passed by the Ld.MM,

Tis Hazari Court, Delhi whereby the court rejected the application for

permanent exemption and to grant permanent exemption to the accused

person through her counsel during the course of pending trial subject to any

terms and conditions in CC No.290437/16.

4. It is not in dispute that a civil suit in respect of the very same

transaction (which is the subject matter of these proceedings in Delhi) was

filed by the complainant and appeals arising therefrom are pending hearing

in Pune Courts of competent jurisdiction. As alleged, the entire transaction

took place in Pune and the property to which the transaction pertains is also

situated in Pune. No part of the transaction took place in Delhi.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the agreement

in question is also signed in Pune. The Petitioner, a widow, is a senior

citizen and about 75 years old aged lady, residing at Pune (Maharashtra).

The Petitioner is suffering from health issues from long time due to her old

age and has been operated for partial distal Gastrectomy for her recurrent

gastrointestinal bleeding. She also underwent Prosthetic valve replacement

for Aortic Stenosis. Due to her ailment, she has been advised not to

undertake any journey. The Petitioner had filed an application for permanent

exemption from appearance on 06.03.2019 on cogent and bonafide grounds,

which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

6. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the present petition and

submits that Trial Court has seen the petitioner and she has no difficulty in

appearing in the court.

7. The fact remains that the case is going on for further cross

examination of PW-2, therefore, I direct the Trial Court to grant exemption

from personal appearance to the petitioner except only when she is

personally required to appear in court.

8. In view of above direction, the petition is disposed of.

9. Pending application stands disposed of.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE JANUARY 29, 2020 ab