Delhi District Court
Meenu Pandey vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 6 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AMIT BANSAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision Number : 65/2/16
New Case No. : 8663/16
CNR No. : DL ND010043932016
FIR No. : 166/10
PS : Barakhamba Road
u/S : 420/468/471 IPC
Meenu Pandey, advocate
w/o Sh. D.K.Pandey, ....
r/o 1079, Vivekanand Nagar,
Ghaziabad, UP. Petitioner/Revisionist
Versus
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Respondent.
Date of receipt of file in this Court : 08.06.2016
Date when arguments were heard : 06.09.2016
Date of Order : 06.09.2016
ORDER
1. The present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in FIR CR no. 65/2/16 FIR NO. 166/2010 Meenu Pandey Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) page 1 of 5 No. 166/2010, PS Barakhamba Road whereby the learned Trial Court directed issuance of Non Bailable Warrants (NBWs) against the accused persons including the revisionist returnable for 06.12.2016.
2. I have heard the rival submissions on behalf of learned counsel for the Revisionist / accused and the Ld. Additional PP for State / respondent and have also carefully perused the record including the Trial Court record.
3. The ld counsel for the Revisionist/accused argued that the revisionist was appearing in the said case before the ld. trial court, however, due to wrong noting down of date as 07.05.2016 instead of 03.05.2016 and consequent absence on 03.05.2016, NBWs were directed to be issued against the revisionist. He referred to the photocopy of the court diary maintained by the counsel for the revisionist in that regard. He also referred to the order dated 14.08.2015 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in special leave to appeal ( Crl.) 6849 CRLMP No. 13013/2015 in matter Meenu Pandey Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi, wherein, it was inter alia directed that if an application for grant of exemption from appearance is made before the learned trial judge, the same shall also be considered sympathetically and in accordance with law. He argued that application for permanent exemption from personal appearance of revisionist under Section 205 Cr.P.C is still pending before the learned trial court. He submitted that the revisionist shall be careful to appear before the ld trial court in future and prayed that the impugned order be set aside and has undertaken that the revisionist would appear before the ld.trial court CR no. 65/2/16 FIR NO. 166/2010 Meenu Pandey Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) page 2 of 5 on the next date of hearing fixed there i.e. 06.12.2016.
4. Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent has argued that there is no material illegality or infirmity in the impugned order but has fairly submitted that an appropriate order may be passed as per law and that the revisionist / accused be directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 06.12.2016.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the Charge sheet in case FIR no. 166/2010 PS Barakhamba Road under Section 420/468/471 IPC was filed before the ld. trial court on 18.07.2014. In the said charge sheet Gaurav Mittal, Meenu Pandey/revisionist and Nishnat Kumar were kept in Column. no. 11 of the charge sheet. The revisionist was mentioned as "Not Arrested" in the charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. The ld trial court took cognizance of the offences on 02.01.2015 and directed issuance of summons to accused for 16.04.2015. It was again directed on 16.04.2015 that all the accused persons be summoned through IO / SHO concerned for 19.10.2015 for supplying the documents. The revisionist was present on 19.10.2015 and an application for permanent exemption from personal appearance u/s 205 Cr.P.C was filed on her behalf. The matter was notified for further proceedings by the learned trial court for 12.01.2016. On 12.01.2016 the personal appearance of the revisionist for that date was allowed on an application, it was submitted by ld counsel for the revisionist that an application seeking her discharge in the case had already been filed and that certain documents would be filed in support of application for permanent exemption from personal appearance. The revisionist was CR no. 65/2/16 FIR NO. 166/2010 Meenu Pandey Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) page 3 of 5 directed to appear in person by ld. trial court on the next date of hearing i.e. 03.05.2016. On 03.05.2016 all the accused persons were absent and vide impugned order, the ld trial court directed issuance of NBWs against them including the revisionist for 06.12.2016. Perusal of record would show that thereafter vide order dated 11.05.2016, the ld trial court cancelled the NBWs of accused Gaurav Mittal on his application.
6. The perusal of record shows that the revisionist was in fact appearing in this case and one application for discharge of the revisionist u/s 239 Cr.P.C is pending disposal before the learned trial court. The record would also show that one application for permanent exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 Cr.P.C of the revisionist is also pending disposal before the ld. trial court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in above said order dated 14.08.2015 has granted liberty to the revisionist herein that if so desired she can make an application for discharge before the ld. trial court and if the said application is filed, then the same shall be considered by the learned trial judge without being influenced by the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in order dated 20.03.2015. It was further directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its order dated 14.08.2015 that further, if an application for grant of exemption from appearance is made before the ld. trial judge, the same shall also be considered sympathetically and in accordance with law. The said applications are still pending disposal before the ld. trial court. As mentioned above, the revisionist was appearing before the ld. trial CR no. 65/2/16 FIR NO. 166/2010 Meenu Pandey Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) page 4 of 5 court and the charge sheet has been filed without her arrest. It has also been submitted on behalf of the ld counsel for the revisionist that inadvertently wrong date of hearing was noted down by the counsel on 12.01.2016 as 07.05.2016 instead of 03.05.2016 and that the revisionist would be careful in future and would appear before the learned trial court. The revisionist was also absent on only one date of hearing i.e. 03.05.2016 when NBWs were directed to be issued against her vide impugned order by the ld trial court. In these circumstances and discussion, the learned trial court was not right in issuing NBWs against the revisionist at the first instance. The impugned order is thus not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.
7. In view of the abovesaid discussion, the present revision petition is allowed and the order dated 03.05.2016 to the extent of directing issuance of NBWs against the revisionist is set aside. It is, however, directed that the revisionist / accused shall appear before the Ld. Trial Court on the next date of hearing fixed there i.e. 06.12.2016 .
8. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
9. TCRs be sent back along with the copy of the present order and Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 06.09.2016 (AMIT BANSAL) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS/NEW DELHI.
06.09.2016 CR no. 65/2/16 FIR NO. 166/2010 Meenu Pandey Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) page 5 of 5