Delhi District Court
Chanan Singh Sidhu vs The State on 17 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-6, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION No. 90/2021 (RBT 75/22 )
IN THE MATTER OF:
Chanan Singh Sidhu
S/o Late Sh. Samey Singh
R/o Sidhu Farms, Chal Mazra,
P. S. Mullapura, SAS Nagar,
Punjab.
........Revisionist
Versus
1. The State
Govt. of NCT, Delhi
2. Naresh Chopra
Director of M/s Chopra Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
Office at: WZ-27, Manohar Park,
New Delhi
.......... Respondents
Instituted on : 06.03.2021
Reserved on : 27.04.2023
Pronounced on : 17.05.2023
Cr Rev 90/2021 Chanan Singh Sidhu Vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) Page no.1/13
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2023.05.17
17:46:03
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of present revision petition U/s 397 r/w Section 399 Cr.P.C filed on behalf of revisionist Mr. Chanan Singh Sidhu praying for setting aside the orders dated 18.04.2012, 05.07.2012 and 04.04.2013 of Ld. Trial Court whereby he was declared Proclaimed Offender after issuance of NBW as well as process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.455/2008 U/s 341/448/420/468/471/506/120B/34 IPC PS Mehrauli.
2. Briefly stated the facts as per record are as under:-
An FIR No. 455/2008 was lodged at PS Mehrauli on 11.09.2008 for the offences u/s 341/448/420/468/471/506/120B/34 IPC. Said FIR was registered on the basis of a typed complaint dated 17.07.2008 duly signed by Mr. Gurdial Singh addressed to The Commissioner of Police, Delhi. As per the same, he was the owner of a property measuring 34 bighas situated at Ali Wala Bagh, Mehrauli, Delhi-30 which he allegedly purchased in year 1998. He had appointed one caretaker Mr. Chhote Lal to look after his property as he was based in Mohali, Punjab. He used to visit his property every few months. He further mentioned in the complaint that when he had come to visit the land, the caretaker told him that he will not vacate the corner hutment which was temporarily given to him to look after the property. Those words of the caretaker were ignored by him but on his next visit, caretaker tried to stop his entry and called land mafia and police men Cr Rev 90/2021 Chanan Singh Sidhu Vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) Page no.2/13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.05.17 17:46:13 +0530 in his favour. The care taker demanded a sum of few lakhs of rupees and to avoid confrontation, an amount to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/- was paid by him. However, the caretaker allegedly kept demanding more money from him which he refused to pay. He had named one Mr. Narendra Chaudhary allegedly a land mafia and one Mr. Azad Kumar allegedly a Police Official from Delhi Police who alongwith other people in connivance of caretaker were doing all this. He had expressed his apprehension in the complaint that he might be falsely implicated in any case including that of outraging the modesty of a woman. He was also under apprehension that on his next visit, he might be stopped from entering into his own land and efforts can be made to extort more money from him. It was also mentioned that he came to know about two security guards having been posted at his land by a private security company and said company informed him that same was being done at the instance of one Mr. B.S. Tolani (a resident of Bombay). The telephone and fax numbers provided by the private security company were not pertaining to Mr. Tolani and he also came to know that he was not residing at the address provided to him.
3. On this basis, FIR was registered and the investigation was carried out. During investigation, it came on record that the owner of the property Mr. B.S. Tolani had not sold the same to anyone including Mr. Gurdial Singh. A complaint from Mr. Naresh Chopra, Director, M/s Chopra Marketing Pvt. Ltd. was received by police Cr Rev 90/2021 Chanan Singh Sidhu Vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) Page no.3/13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.05.17 17:46:22 +0530 during investigation on 02.01.2009 wherein several allegations of cheating and forgery were leveled against several accused persons including the revisionist herein. It was alleged that on the basis of forged GPA in favour of accused Birender Kumar, he was induced to part with a sum of Rs.90 lacs on the premise that property with the name of Ali Wala Bagh, near Vasant Kunj, Delhi was being sold to him. After recording of testimonies of witnesses and on the basis of documentary evidence, charge-sheet was filed for the offences u/s 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120B IPC against Mr. Gurdial Singh before Ld. Trial Court on 12.03.2009. Cognizance for said offences was taken on 16.03.2009.
4. During further investigation, an application for issuance of NBW against the revisionist was moved before Ld. Trial Court. Subsequently another application for issuance of process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against him was moved. Vide order dated 04.04.2013, the revisionist was declared proclaimed offender. Order dated 18.04.2012 of Ld. ACMM whereby NBW was issued against the revisionist, order dated 05.07.2012 of Ld. ACMM whereby process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him and order dated 04.04.2013 whereby he was declared proclaimed offender, are being challenged in these proceedings.
Cr Rev 90/2021 Chanan Singh Sidhu Vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) Page no.4/13
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2023.05.17
17:46:37
+0530
5. Arguments heard.
It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that Ld. Trial Court has wrongly declared him proclaimed offender after ignoring the relevant previsions and judicial pronouncements. It was submitted that he has nothing to do with the alleged offences and he had already joined the investigation in the year 2009. It was submitted that he had not absconded and was still staying at the address as available with police officials. It was argued that there is a delay of around 8 years in filing the present revision petition however, same is sought to be condoned due to wrong legal advice by the previous counsel. It was submitted that the revisionist had made every effort to join the investigation after he came to know that process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him. It was submitted that objection to the process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was filed on his behalf before Ld. Trial Court however he did not get any relief. Further, an anticipatory bail application was moved by him before Hon'ble Delhi High Court which was dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2013. Another application for anticipatory bail was moved before Ld. Sessions Court which was dismissed vide order dated 05.11.2020. It was argued that it is settled law that wrong legal advice by an advocate is sufficient ground to condone the delay. It has been submitted that the applicant is a senior citizen. His right arm has been amputated and he got medically retired from Indian Army as a Captain. It was submitted that the applicant is still ready to join the investigation in case, order declaring him proclaimed offender is set-aside so that he is able to seek the relief of Cr Rev 90/2021 Chanan Singh Sidhu Vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) Page no.5/13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.05.17 17:46:49 +0530 anticipatory bail as per law because in the absence thereto, he cannot have such a relief in view of categorical judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma Crl. Appeal No. 2049/2017. It was submitted that NBW as well as process U/s 82 Cr.P.C was ordered to be issued against him by Ld. Trial Court without taking into consideration the requirements thereof as provided in law. He has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. He has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Laishram Gojendra Singh and Ors. Vs. Langpoklakpam Gunamani Singh and Ors. Crl. Petition No. 17/2013.
(ii) Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand Cr. M.P. No. 2722/2019.
(iii) Abdul Kubur Vs. State Crl. RC (MD) No. 231/2021.
(iv) Rafiq & Anr. Vs. Munshilal & Anr. 1981 AIR 1400.
(v) N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy .
(vi) State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan Crl. No. 131/2006.
(vii) Ramkrishnan Jairam Damdar Vs. Savita.
(viii) Chatrapati Co-op. Sugar Factory Ltd. Sonajinagar, Sawargoan Vs. Amit Crl. Writ Petition No. 570/2009.
(ix) Rockes Bernabas Sandhu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Crl. Revision No. 247/2018.
(x) Arun Kumar Parihar Vs. State(Govt NCTD) Crl. M.C. No. 863/2021.
(xi) Gurjeet Singh Johar Vs. State of Punjab & Another Crm. M. No. 47872/2019.
Cr Rev 90/2021 Chanan Singh Sidhu Vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) Page no.6/13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.05.17 17:46:58 +0530
6. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for State/respondent no.1 has vehemently opposed the revision petition. It has been submitted that the petition has been filed after extraordinary delay of around 8 years and no suitable explanation thereof has come on record. It was submitted that the revisionist has prima facie committed the offence of cheating and forgery and he has deliberately not joined the investigation for so long despite having the knowledge of requirement of his presence in this case. It has been submitted that his anticipatory bail has already been dismissed by Hon'ble High Court as well from Ld. Sessions Court. He has prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
7. No arguments were adduced on behalf of respondent no.2.
Written submissions were filed on his behalf as per which, the revision petition has been prayed to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the same. It has been mentioned therein that revisionist was throughout aware of the proceedings going on against him but he did not participate in the same for the obvious reasons. It has been also mentioned that whether the revisionist committed any offence or not is a matter of trial. Prayer has been made for dismissal of revision petition. He has relied upon following judgments:-
(i) Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, Crl. Appeal No. 1209/2021.
(ii) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma, Crl. Appeal No.2049/2013.
Cr Rev 90/2021 Chanan Singh Sidhu Vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) Page no.7/13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.05.17 17:47:10 +0530
8. I have considered the submissions from both the sides alongwith record and judgments cited.
As mentioned earlier, the revisionist has assailed orders dated 18.04.2012, 05.07.2012 and 04.04.2013 of Ld. Trial Court. Record reveals that an application dated 18.04.2012 was moved by the IO Inspector Nageen Kaushik before Ld. Trial Court for issuance of NBW against 4 accused persons including the revisionist herein. It has been mentioned in the said application that on the basis of forged documents, accused persons had tried to sell the land in question to one Mr. Naresh Chopra. The revisionist herein was a witness to the said illegal transaction and took Rs. 28.50 lacs from Mr. Chopra. On the basis of said application, NBW was issued against the revisionist for 05.07.2012. It appears that SI Ajay Kumar had gone to Punjab on 30.05.2012 to execute the NBW against the revisionist whereupon he met his wife who informed him that he was not at home and that he resides somewhere in Amritsar. She also informed him that he used to come there occasionally. It was also informed by her that he had not come there since long and that she will inform him about the Court and date whenever he will come.
9. On the basis of said report, request was made by IO to Ld. Trial Court on 05.07.2012 for issuance of process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against revisionist, whereupon Ld. Trial Court issued process U/s 82 Cr.P.C.
against him for 10.10.2012. The process server HC Selak Ram had gone on 10.09.2012 to execute the process. The revisionist was again Cr Rev 90/2021 Chanan Singh Sidhu Vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) Page no.8/13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.05.17 17:47:19 +0530 not present at the said address and his daughter-in-law namely Ms. Chandanpreet met him and informed him that her father-in-law used to come there occasionally. She also informed him that she was not having his phone number. After recording her statement and the statement of his driver Mr. Vikas Singh, the process server pasted copy of process on the main gate and proclamation was made. Copy thereof was also pasted on the notice board of the Court.
10. On the basis of said report, an application dated 28.03.2013 was moved by the IO before Ld. Trial Court praying for declaration of revisionist as proclaimed offender. In the meanwhile, an application was moved on his behalf by his counsel in the form of objections to the proclamation and seeking cancellation of the same. Said application was so submitted to Ld. Trial Court on 15.01.2013 and copy thereof was supplied to IO. Vide subsequent order dated 04.04.2013, after recording the statement of process sever HC Selak Ram, Ld. CMM (South) on being satisfied that the revisionist has failed to appear despite due service of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against him, declared him proclaimed offender.
11. Before considering the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist on merits, it will have to be examined first as to whether the delay of around 8 years in filing the present revision petition has been satisfactorily explained. The revisionist has moved an application u/s 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay on Cr Rev 90/2021 Chanan Singh Sidhu Vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) Page no.9/13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.05.17 17:47:27 +0530 the ground of wrong legal advise by previous counsel. Admittedly, he was declared proclaimed offender on 04.04.2013 whereas present revision petition has been moved on 06.03.2021. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has attributed the said delay solely to the wrong advice received by him from the previous counsel. It was submitted that instead of moving the petition U/s 397 Cr.P.C. qua the impugned order dated 04.04.2013, earlier counsel moved an application objecting to the proclamation which was already executed. Also, anticipatory bail applications were moved before different Courts including Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Ld. Sessions Court which were legally not maintainable. It was submitted that wrong advice on the part of earlier counsel should not come in the way of revisionist getting appropriate relief as per law. Such submissions were vehemently opposed by Ld. Addl. PP for State as well as by respondent no.2.
12. Record reveals that the anticipatory bail application moved by the revisionist before Hon'ble High Court was dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2013 i.e., before he was declared proclaimed offender by Ld. Trial Court which was admittedly so done vide order dated 04.04.2013. Perusal of said order of Hon'ble High Court shows that he was declined the relief of anticipatory bail on the basis of his specific role in the alleged offence and not because the proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. had been executed against him. In these facts, revisionist should have either joined the investigation after 11.02.2013 or should have surrendered before Ld.Trial Court, but he did not do Cr Rev 90/2021 Chanan Singh Sidhu Vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) Page no.10/13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.05.17 17:47:36 +0530 either for the reasons which are obvious. In fact, he did not do anything after 11.02.2013 for more than 7 years. It was only after the police had gone to apprehend him (he was found to be hospitalized at that time) in pursuance to order dated 09.10.2020 of Ld. CMM (South) wherein it was directed to make sincere efforts to trace him, the revisionist moved another application for anticipatory bail before the Court of Ld. ASJ which was dismissed vide order dated
05.11.2020.
13. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he did not do anything in between because he was not properly informed by his earlier counsel, is not believable. It is hard to digest that the revisionist who has been medically relieved as Captain from Indian Army would not have done anything to know about the fate of his applications including anticipatory bail application moved before Hon'ble High Court. In case, earlier counsel did not even care to inform him about the proceedings, it is not clear as to what steps were taken by the revisionist against him. Admittedly, no complaint before any disciplinary authority including Bar Counsel of Delhi was moved against said counsel. This Court is unable to agree with the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that his anticipatory bail applications before Hon'ble High Court as well as before Ld. Sessions Court are sufficient to indicate that he was always ready to join the proceedings as in such a case, he should have joined the proceedings Cr Rev 90/2021 Chanan Singh Sidhu Vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) Page no.11/13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.05.17 17:47:44 +0530 after dismissal of his anticipatory bail application way back in February, 2013.
14. I have gone through the judgments placed on record by the revisionist regarding principles applicable for condonation of delay. In N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy dated 03.09.1998, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory."
(emphasis supplied)
15. Applying the said yardstick, this Court is not persuaded by the explanation provided for condonation of delay for the reasons mentioned above. This is a classic case where a person who is accused of cheating and forgery of documents has adopted ever trick available to avoid the criminal justice system. It appears that he has been successful in doing so, considering that a period of more than 10 years has elapsed since he was declared proclaimed offender and still he has not joined the investigation. The inaction on the part of investigating Cr Rev 90/2021 Chanan Singh Sidhu Vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) Page no.12/13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.05.17 17:47:56 +0530 agency has also help him a lot as there is nothing on record as to what efforts were made by police to apprehend him after 04.04.2013 till 09.10.2020.
16. Considering the above discussion,this Court is of the view that the revisionist has failed to provide sufficient explanation for the delay of around 08 years in filing the present revision petition against the impugned orders. The explanation given to the effect that same was due to wrong advise given by earlier counsel is too vague and general in nature. Accordingly, no ground is made out to allow the application for condonation of delay. Same is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, the revision petition also stands dismissed as not maintainable due to delay in filing the same.
Revision petition stands disposed of in said terms.
Digitally signedSUNIL by SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.05.17 17:48:05 +0530 Announced in the open (Sunil Gupta) Court on 17th May, 2023 Additional Sessions Judge-06, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi Cr Rev 90/2021 Chanan Singh Sidhu Vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) Page no.13/13