Vikas Sharma vs M/S D.S.R. Infradevelopers
2022 Latest Caselaw 3817 UK

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2105 of 2022


Vikas Sharma                                     ...... Petitioner

                                Vs.

M/s D.S.R. Infradevelopers                      ..... Respondent

Presents:-
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.


                          JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the

Code"), is made to the followings:-

(i) Order dated 07.09.2019, passed in

Criminal Case No. 1391 of 2015, M/s

D.S.R. Infradevelopers Vs. M/s Supreme

Infrastructure, by the court of Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate/Senior Civil

Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh

Nagar ("the case"), and all the

consequential proceedings arising

therefrom, and;

(ii) Order dated 28.09.2022, passed in the

case, by which an application for exemption

filed by the petitioner for personal

appearance has been rejected. In fact, the

petitioner has sought permission of the

court for virtual hearing of the case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner could not appear on some

dates due to COVID-19 pandemic. Once the statements

of the witnesses are recorded, he may, thereafter, be

examined till then, the petitioner has sought exemption

from personal appearance with the permission to join

the proceedings by virtual mode. But, it has been

rejected by the court. It is argued that the petitioner

stays in Mumbai. He receives threats by the

complainant. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to

be set aside.

4. It is true that one of the grounds for

rejecting the application for virtual hearing was that

there is no such provision. The other grounds include

non-appearance for a long and issuance of coercive

processes.

5. In fact, the cognizance and summoning

order was earlier challenged by the petitioner in Criminal

Misc. Application No.1470 of 2017, Sri Vikas Sharma

Vs. M/s D.S.R. Infradevelopers Ltd. ("the first petition"),

which was rejected by this Court on 25.10.2017, with

the liberty to the petitioner to appear before the court

concerned within a week since then. The petitioner did

appear, but he absented himself, thereafter.

6. It is a summon case, the first step towards

trial is reading over accusation to an accused. The order

dated 07.09.2019 reveals much. After decision in the

first petition filed by the petitioner, he appeared in the

case on 02.11.2017. But, thereafter, he continued giving

application for exemption from personal appearance,

some of which were allowed, but, subsequently, the

court insisted for his personal appearance so as to read

over the accusation under Section 251 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, ("the Code"). The revisionist

did not appear.

7. The court rejected the application for

exemption from personal appearance on 23.05.2018 and

issued non-bailable warrants. Thereafter, processes

under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code were issued, but

the petitioner did not appear. It is, at that stage, in the

year 2022, he filed an application again seeking

exemption from personal appearance and at the same

time, seeking permission to join the proceedings through

virtual mode. That application was rejected.

8. The above chronology of events

categorically reveals that, in fact, it is the petitioner, who

is not allowing the case to proceed further. He

challenged the summoning order in the first petition,

which was rejected in the year 2017. The petitioner was

given an opportunity to appear within a week since then

and he did appear also on 02.11.2017, but, thereafter,

for almost 5 years, the petitioner never personally

appeared before the court. It is the petitioner, who has

kept the case pending for complete 5 years. On behalf of

the revisionist, it is submitted that, in the intervening

period, the activities were stopped due to COVID-19

pandemic. That is true, but even if those 2 years are

excluded, it remains for 3 years. His personal presence

is required. That is what the court has noted. He has to

be read over the accusation under Section 251 of the

Code. One way or other way, the revisionist is trying to

evade the trial. The court below has rightly rejected the

application. There is no merit in this petition.

Accordingly, it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of

admission itself.

9. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.11.2022 Ravi Bisht