Delhi District Court
Vikas vs . The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 January, 2015
CR No. 02/15
Vikas Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE01, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CR NO. 02/2015
Vikas
S/o Sh.Kartar Singh
R/o Village Samaspur Khalsa
Post Office UJWA
New Delhi110 073. ... Petitioner/Revisionist
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi
Date of institution of revision petition :07.01.2015
Date on which order reserved :30.01.2015
Date on which order pronounced :30.01.2015
ORDER
1. Revisionist is aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2014 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order) of the ld.trial court vide which ld.trial court did not recall the 82 Cr.P.C.proceedings initiated against the revisionist.
2. Notice of the revision petition was issued to state. Ld.Addl.PP for state after accepting the notice of the revision petition submitted that he does not wish to file CR No. 02/15 1/5 CR No. 02/15 Vikas Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi any reply and will argue the revision petition rightaway.
3. I have heard ld.counsel for revisionist and Sh.Aditya Kumar, Ld.Addl.PP for state. I have also summoned the trial court record and have carefully perused the same.
4. Counsel for revisionist has submitted that he was not absconding and IO had obtained the NBWs against revisionist on the strength of false report by recording statement of one Anuj and falsely stated in the said report that he was the cousin brother of revisionist. It was further submitted that revisionist is very much staying at the given address and he has never absconded and IO has given a false report by recording statement of Anuj whereas the fact is that Anuj is not the cousin brother of revisionist and IO never came to his house for serving summon/NBW. It was further submitted that on the strength of false report of IO on the NBWs, 82 Cr.P.C.process was issued against him and ld.trial court did not accept the plea of revisionist for recall and dismissed his application vide the impugned order. Accordingly, it was prayed that 82 Cr.P.C.proceedings initiated by ld.trial court be recalled.
CR No. 02/15 2/5 CR No. 02/15Vikas Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi
5. On the other hand, Ld.Addl.PP for state has submitted that ld.trial court has rightly dismissed the application of revisionist seeking recall of 82 Cr.P.C.proceedings as he had chosen not to appear before the court and report on the NBWs given by IO shows that he was evading his arrest and was not joining the investigation. Accordingly, a prayer was made to dismiss the revision petition.
6. I have carefully perused the record.
7. Record reflects that 82 Cr.P.C.proceedings were issued against revisionist for 13.01.2015 vide order dated 26.11.2014. The main objective of issuing coercive process i.e. NBW/82 Cr.P.C.is to procure the presence of accused. Once revisionist/accused had appeared before the ld.trial court through his counsel and had stated that IO had given a false report and Anuj was not his cousin brother which fact has been reiterated before this court on affidavit, it was incumbent upon the ld.trial court to have recalled 82 Cr.P.C.process and should have directed the revisionist/accused to join the investigation as the main purpose of issuing 82 Cr.P.C.process was to secure the presence of accused before the court or before the CR No. 02/15 3/5 CR No. 02/15 Vikas Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi IO. The very fact that revisionist/accused had approached the ld.trial court seeking cancellation of 82 Cr.P.C.process shows that he intended to submit before the law and was not absconding from the law.
8. In the facts and circumstances, there was no reason with the ld.trial court to have issued 82 Cr.P.C.process once revisionist/accused had put in his appearance through his counsel before the court.
9. The nonappearance of revisionist/accused himself was no ground to dismiss the application as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the matter of Prem Cashew Industries Vs. Zen Pareo, 2000 (88)DLT 59 has held that "an application can be filed through counsel seeking cancellation of NBW and the same can be considered by the Ld.trial court without insisting for the personal appearance of revisionist/accused." Accordingly, revision petition is allowed and order of the ld.trial court directing issuance of process under section 82 Cr.P.C.against revisionist/accused is hereby set aside with the direction to revisionist/accused to join the investigation as and when required by the IO/SHO and to appear before the ld.trial court on the date already CR No. 02/15 4/5 CR No. 02/15 Vikas Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi fixed there.
10.Revision file be consigned to record room.
11.TCR be sent back alongwith a copy of order.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated: 30.01.2015 ASJ01/Dwarka
New Delhi
CR No. 02/15 5/5