Delhi High Court
Sanser Pal Singh vs Honble Delhi Court And Ors. on 18 January, 2022
$~39.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 18th January, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 1104/2022
SANSER PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
Versus
HONBLE DELHI COURT AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Central
Government Standing Counsel with Mr. Danish
Faraz Khan, Advocate for R-1/UOI.
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with
Mrs. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh,
Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Advocates for R-2&3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGMENT
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
Proceedings have been conducted through video conferencing.
C.M.No.3179/2022 (exemptions)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.1104/2022
1. Present writ petition, styled as Public Interest Litigation, has been
preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
Signature Not Verified
AMIT NARAYAN
BHARTHUAR
Location:
Signing Date:20.01.2022
17:57:05
"In view of the facts and circumstances, it is therefore,
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may please
to:-
a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus to Respondent No.1 and 2 to issue direction to
all the Metropolitan Magistrates (NI Act) of the courts
subordinate to this Hon'ble Court to:
(1) follow the direction contained in practice direction
dated 21.06.2021 passed by Hon'ble Registrar General of
this Hon'ble Court and to treat service of summons in
one complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act forming part of
a transaction, as deemed service in respect of all
complaints relating to dishonor of cheques issued as part
of the same transaction;
(2) to execute summons/warrants on accused in
another court in cheque dishonourment cases if both
cases are 1n same transaction and summons / warrants
are not executed on address of accused given in memo of
parties;
b) Pass any other or further order as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and just, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
2. We have heard the Petitioner, who appears in person, as well as
learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Respondents. From a perusal of
the pleadings in the writ petition, it is evident that this is not a Public Interest
Litigation but is a private and publicity interest litigation. It has been held by
the Supreme Court in several judgments that while seeking relief in the
nature of Public Interest Litigation, the Petitioner should have no personal or
vested interest and should not be guided by any self-gain. For ready
reference, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dattaraj
Signature Not Verified
AMIT NARAYAN
BHARTHUAR
Location:
Signing Date:20.01.2022
17:57:05
Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 540,
relevant para of which is as follows:
"12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to
be used with great care and circumspection and the
judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind
the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private
malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not
lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the
armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens.
The attractive brand name of public interest litigation
should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It
should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or
public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on
personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be
careful to see that a body of persons or member of
public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and
not for personal gain or private motive or political
motivation or other oblique considerations. The Court
must not allow its process to be abused for oblique
considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at
times from behind. Some persons with vested interest
indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process
either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try
to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves.
Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or
cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies
deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold,
and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."
3. Petitioner has averred in paragraph-7 of the writ petition that he has
filed two complaint cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, the details whereof are also mentioned. It is further averred that the
Petitioner has moved an application before the concerned Court to execute
bailable warrants in accordance with the practice directions issued pursuant
to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto W.P.(Crl.)
Signature Not Verified
AMIT NARAYAN
BHARTHUAR
Location:
Signing Date:20.01.2022
17:57:05
No.2/2020, however, the learned Trial Court has declined to entertain the
application. Petitioner has also annexed copy of the application dated
08.12.2021 as well as the order passed thereon.
4. It is thus obvious, as rightly contended by learned counsels for the
Respondents, that in the garb of so-called Public Interest Litigation, the
Petitioner is seeking to in effect challenge the order passed by Learned MM
with regard to execution of bailable warrants, in a matter relating to Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The vested interest of the
Petitioner is, therefore, writ large and the petition deserves to be dismissed
on this short ground.
5. It is relevant to take note of the serious objection taken on behalf of
the Respondents that Petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, has filed
several criminal complaints in the past, in most of which he is himself the
complainant and after the summons are issued, he does not prosecute the
complaints. It is submitted that in one such petition being W.P.(C) 464/2022,
Respondents are in the process of filing a status report, highlighting the
conduct of the Petitioner. Learned counsels for the Respondents also draw
the attention of the Court to the Memo of Parties and submit that the
Petitioner is adopting a wrong practice by impleading the learned Judge of
the Court, whose order is challenged and this is nothing but a pressure
tactics.
6. Insofar as W.P.(C) 464/2022 is concerned, as and when the said writ
petition comes up for hearing, the objections raised by the Respondents will
be considered and no orders are being passed with respect to the said
petition in this writ petition. Insofar as the Memo of Parties is concerned,
Respondent No.2 shall be treated as deleted from the array of parties.
Signature Not Verified
AMIT NARAYAN
BHARTHUAR
Location:
Signing Date:20.01.2022
17:57:05
7. In view of the aforesaid, we see no reason to entertain this writ
petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JYOTI SINGH, J
JANUARY 18, 2022
'anb'
Signature Not Verified
AMIT NARAYAN
BHARTHUAR
Location:
Signing Date:20.01.2022
17:57:05
