Delhi District Court
Rajesh Sharma vs State on 14 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA: ASJ05 : WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.R. No. 50/15.
ID No. 02401R0385442015
In the matter of :
Rajesh Sharma,
S/o Late Gulzari Lal,
r/o E233, Durga Park,
Jaipur, Rajasthan,
Presently at Delhi.
............ Petitioner.
VERSUS
State.
............. Respondent.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 25.07.2015
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 11.08.2015
DATE OF DECISION : 14.08.2015
JUDGEMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the revision petition against the order dated 11.03.2005 whereby the proceedings u/s. 82 Cr.P.C was ordered to be issued against the petitioner and against the order dated 14.01.2008 whereby the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender.
2. It is mentioned in the revision petition that petitioner came to know about the registration of the present case only in the last week when petitioner went to his property bearing No. RZJ44, Raj NagarI, Main Road, Palam Colony, New Delhi after a period of 45 years of his last visit. The petitioner had shifted to CR No. 50/15. Page No. 1 of 5 Jaipur in the year, 2003 and started own business of trading of jewellery and real estates. The property No. RZJ44, Raj NagarI, Main Road, Palam Colony, New Delhi was kept locked since 2003. The petitioner and his relatives used to visit off and on the property. In the second week of June, 2015 the petitioner received information about sale and occupation of this property. The petitioner reached Delhi and found that locks on the property were broken and some family is occupying the property being illegal occupant. It was told to the petitioner that property was sold to him but documents of purchase of property were not been shown to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about his involvement in the present case through one Mr. Sushil Kumar. It is also mentioned that name of the petitioner has been added in the supplementary chargesheet filed on 08.03.2005. It is also mentioned that the Process Server, who had executed the process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C has mentioned that premises was lying closed for last 4 years and this show that no notice was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner has no concern with Sushil Kumar or any other accused in the present case. It is also mentioned that disclosure statement of Sushil Kumar is to the effect that "one Mr. Raju had given one visiting card of one of Jeweller" or "Mr. Raju had sold melted jewellery for a sum of Rs. 4 lacs do not constitute any offence against the petitioner u/s. 420/468/471/420/201/208 IPC. The Magistrate must recorded the grounds of his satisfaction that the accused was absconding or concealing himself. The provisions are not duly complied. It is prayed that orders dated 11.03.2015 and 14.01.2008 be set aside and the warrants issued against the petitioner may be cancelled.
CR No. 50/15. Page No. 2 of 5
3. I have heard ld. Counsel for the petitioner and ld. Chief PP for the State at length and perused the record carefully.
4. Perusal of the file reveals that as per order sheet dated 11.03.2005 accused Rajesh Sharma and Manohar Lal have been shown in Column No. 2 in the supplementary chargesheet. It is also mentioned by ld. ACMM that earlier process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C had been ordered to be issued. However, report is not clear and appropriate and fresh process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C ordered to be issued against the petitioner. On 08.09.2005, fresh process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C qua accused Rajesh Sharma and Manohar Lal was also issued through IO. On 06.02.2006 again process u/s. 8283 Cr.P.C was ordered to be issued. The process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C received back after execution. Vide order dated 12.04.2007 Ld. ACMM has observed that process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C against the accused Rajesh Sharma and Manohar Lal has been executed. Statement of Process Server HC Vikram was recorded. Ld. ACMM has mentioned in the order dated 12.04.2007 that process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C has been duly carried out against the petitioner and notice was ordered to be issued against the Process Server, who had executed notice u/s. 83 Cr.P.C against the petitioner. On 14.01.2008 petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender.
5. I have also perused the statement of HC Vikram recorded on 12.04.2007. HC Vikram had deposed that the process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C of the CR No. 50/15. Page No. 3 of 5 petitioner and one Manohar Lal was given to him for execution. The process server deposed that on 16.09.2006, he went at the above address for the execution of Process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C. The above address was closed for the last four years and one copy of the process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C was pasted at the above address and one copy of the same was affixed at the notice board of the Court and he proved his report as Ex. CW1/A and Ex. CW1/B. Taking into consideration the report of Process Server, petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender on 14.01.2008 by the Ld. ACMM.
6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued on the lines of the petition. The petitioner in the petition has mentioned that he used to visit off and on to the property bearing No. RZJ44, Raj NagarI, Main Road, Palam Colony, New Delhi. Admittedly the property No. RZJ44, Raj NagarI, Main Road, Palam colony, New Delhi is property of the petitioner. It is also admitted by the petitioner in the petition that he was visiting the property off and on. When the petitioner was visiting the property then he should have noticed that Process u/s. 82 Cr. P.C has been affixed at the premises. It is also mentioned by the petitioner in para no. 3 of the petitioner that his relatives also off and on used to visit the property. I am of the view that the relatives of the petitioner should have told the petitioner about affixsation of the Process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C at his premises. The petitioner has not made clear as to when he visited the property after the year 2003. As per statement of Process Server premises was locked for the last four years. The process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C was affixed on 16.09.2006 at the premises of the petitioner CR No. 50/15. Page No. 4 of 5 but it not where pleaded by the petitioner that after 2006 he has not visited his property. I am of the view that petitioner is not able to tell as to when he visited the property. I am of the view that if the relatives of the petitioner are visiting the property then they should have told the petitioner about pasting of process at his premises.
7. Perusal of the file further reveals that process was affixed on 16.09.2006 and next date before the Court was 18.10.2006, thus, it is not the case that proper time was not given to the petitioner. The normal rule is that the Court has to wait until the expiry of 30 days, to enable the accused to appear in terms of the proclamation. There is no illegality or infirmity in the orders dated 11.03.2005 and 14.01.2008. The revision petition is without any merits and same is hereby dismissed.
Copy of this judgment be sent alongwith the TCR.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court
on 14.08.2015 (Naresh Kumar Malhotra)
ASJ05 (West)/THC/Delhi
CR No. 50/15. Page No. 5 of 5