Delhi District Court
Satender Gupta And Ors vs Sudheer Gupta And Anr on 23 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (NORTH),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLNT01-011414-2024
CR No. 1717/2024
AMIT VASHISHT
S/o Sh. Krishan Swaroop Vashisht,
R/o H-160, First Floor, H-Block,
Ashok Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi.
.....Revisionist
VS.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Through SHO, PS Jahangir Puri.
.....Respondent
Date of institution of revision : 03.08.2024
Date on which judgment pronounced : 22.11.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision petition filed by the revisionist under section 397 Cr.P.C., read with section 438 of BNSS, 2023 for setting- aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order) passed by the Court of Ld. JMFC/Mahila Court-01, North-District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Ld. Trial Court) in Cr Case No. 5286034/2016, in case titled as 'State Vs. Amit Vashisht' whereby the Ld. Trial Court has closed the right of the revisionist/accused to argue on the point of charge. Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR Amit Vashisht Vs State of NCT of Delhi KUMAR Date:
2024.11.23 Page No.1 of 8CR No. 1717/2024 16:15:24
+0530
2. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revisionist has moved the present revision petition on the following grounds :
(i) Because instead of rushing to close the opportunity on charge / discharge application, in case the Ld. Trial Court had doubt of the reasons given for non-appearance of main counsel and petitioner / accused, Ld. Trial Court could have first verified the veracity of the information of in the alternative could have given a short adjournment of 2-3 days instead of making undue presumptions and closing the opportunity to argue in the drastic manner it has done.
(ii) Because it was absurd to order the petitioner / accused to appear at recall after passover as he had already informed on VC that he was in Patial House Courts attending to the life-
threatening serious matter and it was not known to the petitioner / accused in advance how much time the Court till take. The main counsel for accused was ill, however, the Ld. Trial Court did not take the medical prescription on record, did not record the appearance of the associate of the main counsel but directed the main counsel to appear after passover, assuming without any basis that the main counsel could do so but was avoiding appearance for some reason. In these circumstances, the Ld. Trial Court went ahead and incorrectly recorded that the petitioner / accused did not appear on passover and also that no counsel appeared on his behalf. The Digitally Amit Vashisht Vs State of NCT of Delhi signed by SUSHIL Page No.2 of 8 CR No. 1717/2024 SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.11.23 16:15:29 +0530 Ld. Trial Court instead of ordering after passover should have atleast set the matter for 02:00 PM or 3:30 PM.
(iii) Because the petitioner / accused and his counsel did all that they could possibly do in the grave and unavoidable circumstances. The main counsel could not possibly appear on recall after the passover and describe previously, the petitioner / accused also could not physically appear in time, after appearing on VC initially.
(iv) Because the order of Ld. Revisionist Court was to be followed in letter and spirit and one 'effective' opportunity was to be given for arguments on charge / discharge application to the petitioner / accused and not mere rush job without looking at the overall circumstances.
(v) Because the Ld. Revisionist Court had made a comment on the 'conduct' of the petitioner / accused, whereas there is no basis for making such a comment on the conduct of the petitioner / accused as he had present for all the hearings. There have been some unavoidable difficulties faced by his counsel which could have been rectified by giving a short date instead of curtailing the rights of the petitioner / accused.
Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR Amit Vashisht Vs State of NCT of Delhi KUMAR Date: Page No.3 of 8 CR No. 1717/2024 2024.11.23 16:15:34 +0530
(vi) That since 01.05.2023, there has been only one occasion prior to the impugned hearing, when the Court could hold an argument on charge / discharge application. The one occasion was on 17.08.2023, the counsel could not appear due to unavoidable circumstances. On 14.10.2023, he did appear but a few minutes later, order of this Court was set aside by Ld. Revisional Court on 28.02.2024. On 31.07.2024, date of impugned hearing, humbly circumstances of appearance of petitioner / accused and his counsel have been described in detail above. In the impugned order, it has been however made to appear that the counsel has been absent for all those eight hearings due to which arguments on charge / discharge applications have not taken place. This is not what the truth of the matter is, as the arguments on charge / discharge application could not be conducted for various other reasons such as Ld. PO on leave, stay, Court file not returned from Ld. Revisional Court, matter pending before Ld. Revisional Court etc. The absence of the main counsel has been made the main reason for the impugned order even though the record clearly shows that it is not the valid reason.
(vii) Because not granting hearing to the accused at the stage of charge will cause incalculable loss to the accused and his right to obtain discharge would be closed on technical grounds only and he will be made to face trial for a patently false case.
Amit Vashisht Vs State of NCT of Delhi Digitally Page No.4 of 8
CR No. 1717/2024 signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.11.23
16:15:39
+0530
(viii) Because if the impugned order is sustained, the
important right of the accused to pursue his discharge application under section 239 Cr. PC which has been pending for adjudication since 18.11.2015 will be unjustly closed and the application will become infructuous.
3. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for Revisionist that on the LDOH i.e., 31.07.2024, petitioner could not physically before Ld. Trial Court as he had to rush to Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, to oppose interim bail of the husband of complainant who had planted and improvised explosive device in the Court Room No.102, Rohini Courts, on 09.12.2021 to murder the revisionist / accused. It is argued that the main counsel could not possibly appear before Ld. Trial Court on that day which resulted in closing of valuable right of revisionist / accused to argue on the point of charge. It is prayed that impugned order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court may kindly be set-aside and revisionist may kindly be allowed to argue on the point of charge before Ld. Trial Court.
4. On the other hand, Ld. APP for State / Respondent has vehemently opposed the present revision petition filed by revisionist. It is argued that order passed by Ld. Trial Court does not have any error or infirmity and the same has been passed Digitally signed by Amit Vashisht Vs State of NCT of Delhi SUSHIL Page No.5 of 8 CR No. 1717/2024 SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.11.23 16:15:43 +0530 judicially, therefore, the present revision petition filed on behalf of revisionist may kindly be dismissed.
5. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of ld. Counsel for the revisionist/accused as well as Ld. APP for State / Respondent. This Court has also perused the record.
6. In the present case, Trial Court Record has been summoned and the same has been carefully perused. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that in the present case, charge-sheet before Ld. Trial Court concerned was filed in the year 2013 and the matter was pending for arguments on the point of charge since then. Perusal of the file further shows that vide order dated 14.10.2023, Ld. Trial Court had closed revisionist's right to advance arguments on the point of charge, however, the same was challenged by revisionist before Ld. Sessions Court by way of a revision petition. It is further pertinent to mention that the order dated 14.10.2023 passed by Ld. Trial Court was set-aside by Ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 28.02.2024 and an opportunity was granted to revisionist to put forth his submissions on the aspect of charge / arguments on his application seeking discharge.
Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.11.23 Amit Vashisht Vs State of NCT of Delhi 16:15:47 Page No.6 of 8 CR No. 1717/2024 +0530
7. Perusal of the Trial Court Record further shows that in view of the directions of Ld. Sessions Court, matter was fixed up for arguments on the point of charge for 27.06.2024 by Ld. Trial Court. Perusal of the Trial Court Record further shows that on 27.06.2024, Ld. Counsel for accused was not available and the matter was adjourned for 31.07.2024. Perusal of the Trial Court Record further shows that on 31.07.2024, neither accused nor his counsel appeared before Ld. Trial Court and the same resulted in closing of the right of revisionist to argue on the point of charge.
It has been argued that on 31.07.2024, revisionist had gone to Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, to oppose bail application in a case where he was a victim, therefore, he could not appear before Ld. Trial Court. A copy of order sheet dated 31.07.2024 pertaining to FIR bearing No.289/2021 PS Special Cell has been placed on record which shows that victim Amit Vashisht (revisionist herein) was present before the Court of Dr. Hardeep Kaur, Ld. ASJ-02, New Delhi, Patiala Courts, Delhi on 31.07.2024. Therefore, the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court is hereby set-aside and Ld. Trial Court is directed to provide an effective opportunity to the revisionist to argue on the point of charge. It is made clear that only one effective opportunity shall be given to revisionist for the purpose of arguments on the point of charge, failing which no further opportunity for the said purpose shall be given by Ld. Trial Court. Revision petition is disposed off as allowed.
Digitally signed
Amit Vashisht Vs State of NCT of Delhi by SUSHIL Page No.7 of 8
CR No. 1717/2024 SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.11.23
16:16:06 +0530
8. A copy of this order be given to Revisionist and be also sent to the Ld. Trial Court along with the TCR immediately.
9. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due Digitally signed compliance. SUSHIL by SUSHIL KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2024.11.23 16:15:53 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Sushil Kumar) On 22nd of Nov, 2024. Addl. Sessions Judge: 04 (North) Rohini Courts: Delhi.
22.11.2024.
Amit Vashisht Vs State of NCT of Delhi Page No.8 of 8 CR No. 1717/2024