Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

M/S Elgin Electronic Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 19 July, 2021

Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri

Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri

$~39.
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       CRL.M.C. 1557/2021 and CRL.M.A. 10875/2021 (Exemption)
        M/S ELGIN ELECTRONIC PVT. LTD.                   ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. Puneet Goel, Advocate

                           versus

        THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
                                                         ..... Respondents
                           Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP for State

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
        (VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING)
                 ORDER

% 19.07.2021

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 03.03.2021 passed by the learned MM-02 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in C.C. No. 3659/2019 titled as M/s Elgin Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Tech Connect Services Pvt. Ltd. & Others whereby fresh summons were issued against Respondents/accused No. 2 and 3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the orders including the order dated 02.11.2019 and 11.12.2019 whereby Respondents No. 2 and 3 were admitted to bail. At request of the Respondents, the matter was also referred to Mediation however, the Respondents neither appeared before the Mediation Cell nor before the concerned Court.

3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.03.2021. It is submitted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate after noticing the non-appearance of the Respondents had earlier issued summons and despite receiving the report of process server that the summons issued were unserved as the Respondents had reportedly left the premises, again directed issuance of fresh summons which is contradictory to the procedure outlined in Section 89 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that the court ought to have issued NBWs against the Respondents.

4. A perusal of the impugned order would show that after noticing the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner (complainant) that the accused persons were very much residing at the given addresses, the court directed issuance of fresh summons to the Respondents and notices to their sureties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that steps for the service of Respondents in terms of the impugned order have already been taken. The summons were returnable on 08.06.2021, on which date due to COVID-19 pandemic, the Court was not functional. It is informed that the next date of hearing is 08.09.2021.

6. In view of the fact that since steps for service of Respondents No. 2 and 3 and their sureties have already been taken and the matter is coming up for hearing 08.09.2021, no further orders are required to be passed at this stage. On the next date of hearing, the concerned Court shall pass orders in accordance with law.

7. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms alongwith the pending application.

8. As the proceedings are stated to be pending before the concerned Court and is now listed on 08.09.2021, the disposal of the present petition in the aforesaid terms will not come in the way of the complainant to approach this Court, if the need so arises.

9. A copy of this order be communicated electronically to the concerned trial Court for information.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J JULY 19, 2021 na Click here to check corrigendum, if any