Delhi District Court
Dr. Anudeep Singh vs Dr. Geetanjali Singh on 18 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI:ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE /SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI03
(PC ACT) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS:
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision no.67/15
UID No.02406R0372622015
Dr. Anudeep Singh
s/o Brig. Surjeet Singh
r/o A52/1, D.L.F City PhaseI
Gurgaon. ..........Revisionist
Vs.
Dr. Geetanjali Singh
w/o Dr. Anudeep Singh
r/o W6, Green Park
New Delhi
....... Respondent
Date of filing of revision : 19.11.2015
Date of allocation : 20.11.2015
Arguments concluded on : 11.02.2016
Date of order : 18.02.2016
Criminal revision petition under section 397 Cr.PC read
with the provisions of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, wherein the petitioner was
proceeded exparte vide order dated 18.12.2014
CR No.67/15 18.02.2016 Page no. 1/6
ORDER
1. The revisionistrespondent has sought to set aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2014 vide which he was proceeded against exparte. It is noted that vide the impugned order all the three respondents were proceeded exparte. However, order has been challenged only by respondent no.1 Dr. Anudeep Singh.
2. The petition has been filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay as well as in the revision petition are the same.
3. The contention of the revisionist is that his previous counsel never informed him about the proceedings in the Court and misguided him about the next dates of hearings. It was in the month of November, 2015 that he demanded copies of the orders from his counsel Sh. Ankur Sharma. When he did not provide the copies, the revisionist himself checked the copies of the orders and realized that he had already been proceeded against exparte vide impugned order dated 18.12.2014. He also found that his counsel Sh. Ankur Sharma had moved an application for setting aside the exparte order on 28.04.2015 and it was dismissed on 25.07.2015. Petitioner submits that he got to know about these events CR No.67/15 18.02.2016 Page no. 2/6 only on 06.11.2015 which led to delay in filing the present revision. On these grounds, the revisionist has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition as well as for setting aside the impugned order vide which he was proceeded against exparte.
4. Revision petition has been vehemently opposed by the respondentcomplainant.
5. I have heard both the parties and have perused the record carefully including the trial court record. Admittedly, there is a delay of 270 days.
6. Ld.Counsel for respondentaggrieved has pointed out that in four years while the complaint case was pending before ld. Trial Court, the revisionistrespondent has appeared before the Trial Court only once on 01.10.2013 and the main counsel has appeared only twice i.e on 11.07.2013 and 01.10.2013. On six days, the proxy counsel for revisionistrespondent appeared before the trial court. It has been argued that in four years, the case was listed on 22 dates and the revisionistrespondent deliberately and to drag the matter did not pursue the complaint case diligently. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist on the other hand argued that the revisionist should not be punished for the fault of the previous counsel and that the standards applied in general civil suits or commercial CR No.67/15 18.02.2016 Page no. 3/6 litigation for deciding the application for condonation of delay should not be applied to matrimonial disputes.
7. The trial court record shows that even though mostly proxy counsel for the revisionist was appearing before trial court, the revisionist was very much aware of proceedings. He also challenged the order of grant of interim maintenance dated 07.11.2013. It shows that the revisionistrespondent was very well aware of the order dated 07.11.2013 vide which application of the complainantaggrieved for interim relief was disposed of and the case was listed for C.E. Thereafter, the case was further listed for 13 more dates till 14.12.2015 when the case was listed for exparte final arguments. The revisionist has tried to explain his nonappearance before the trial court on the ground that he was under the impression that his counsel was looking after the matter. The Court is not convinced with this contention. It does not constitute a sufficient cause that would warrant condonation of delay in filing the appeal or setting aside the impugned order. The revisionist has not shown any sufficient cause that prevented him from appearing before ld. Trial Court.
8. It is not a case where the respondent was not summoned CR No.67/15 18.02.2016 Page no. 4/6 properly or where he was not aware of pendency of the complaint case, pronouncing of interim maintenance order or filing of execution petition. It is a case where respondent chose not to appear before the Trial Court and pursue the matter diligently. Not just that but in his revision petition, he has tried to project as if Sh. Ankur Sharma, Advocate was the main counsel whereas record shows that he was only a proxy counsel. Revisionist has also not explained that if the proxy counsel did not supply him the copies of the order, how did he come to know about the status of the case. It is not his case that he inspected the case file to ascertain the stage of the case nor is there anything on trial court record to suggest that he inspected the case file. It is quite apparent that the revisionist chose not to pursue the complaint case diligently and adopted dilatory tactics. As has already been observed, the cause shown by the revisionist in the application for condonation of delay as well as in the main petition do not constitute sufficient cause. No doubt it is a matrimonial dispute, however, a party to such litigation cannot be allowed to abuse process of law causing undue hardship to the other. It is noted that in the present revision petition also, the revisionist did not appear in person for the first five dates and it was only at CR No.67/15 18.02.2016 Page no. 5/6 the direction of the Court in view of the averments in the connected application u/s 340 Cr.PC (Misc. No.02/16) moved by the respondentaggrieved that he appeared in person. It appears that non appearance of the revisionist before the Courts is habitual. Therefore, he cannot now blame a proxy counsel of keeping him in dark about the proceedings before ld. Trial Court.
9. In view of the above discussion, the Court does not find any merit in the revision petition and is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the same. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
10. File be consigned to record room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 th DAY OF FEBURARY, 2016.
(Vrinda Kumari)
ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act)
(CBI3), South, Saket Court
New Delhi
CR No.67/15 18.02.2016 Page no. 6/6