Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sweety vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 21 February, 2022

Author: Rajnish Bhatnagar

Bench: Rajnish Bhatnagar

            $~68
            *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
            +          CRL.M.C. 3037/2021
                       SWEETY                                                   ..... Petitioner
                                            Through:                    Petitioner in person.

                                            versus

                       STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS            ..... Respondents
                                    Through:      Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State
                                                  with Insp. Pravin Kumar, DIU.

                       CORAM:
                       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

                                          ORDER

% 21.02.2022

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

a) Grant permission to the petitioner/ complainant to appear before the Sessions Court, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi and her name not to be deleted from array of parties in Revision Petition being CR No.26 and 27 filed by the accused persons/revisionists, in FIR No.709/2014 under Section 420/120B/34 of IPC since it is complaint case and there is hon'ble High Courts order dated 6/1/2020 wherein complainant was given liberty to argue her own case and to expedite the matter within six months. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the SHO Amar Colony, DIU to verify the death of accused No.l and 2 and file report before the Trial Court as the accused persons no. 1 and

2 were declared proclaimed offenders.

b) Pass such other and further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that the complainant (petitioner herein) is a practicing Advocate and is allegedly a victim of fraud committed upon her by accused persons, namely, Rajesh Kapoor and his sisters, namely, Neelam Kapoor and Shobha Sachdeva and her husband, namely, Rajesh Sachdeva. It is alleged that the marriage, which was an arranged marriage, was solemnized between the parties on 22.01.2014, induced by fraud on the part of the accused persons regarding age, property and education of Rajesh Kapoor (former husband of the petitioner herein), which came out to be false, leading to the registration of the FIR No.709 of 2014 under Section 420/468/471/174A/120B/506 IPC at P.S Amar Colony.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2021, the learned Revisional Court had directed the Complainant (petitioner herein) that she can assist Ld. Addl. PP for the state and/ or plead her case through Ld. Addl. PP for the state and that she cannot argue her case independently as there is no provision in Cr.P.C in her support. Therefore, the name of complainant was deleted from array of the parties and the revisionist was directed to file an amended memo of parties.

4. I have heard the petitioner appearing in person and the learned APP for the state and perused the status report filed by the state.

5. The petitioner who is appearing in person submitted that the present matter which is pending before the learned Trial Court, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi for the last five year is quite delicate as the complainant/petitioner being an advocate is the victim of wide spread conspiracy and fraud hatched by the accused persons, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:22.02.2022 20:02 namely, Rajesh Sachdeva and his relatives, who are also advocates. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to frame charges in FIR No.709 of 2014 under Section 420/468/471/174A/ 120B/506 IPC, even after more than five years being elapsed. It is further submitted that the main accused persons, namely, Rajesh Kapoor and Neelam Kapoor were declared proclaimed offenders for the last 3 years and it has been mentioned before the court about the death of the accused No.1 and 2 but no such death certificate has been placed on record yet. It is further submitted that the complainant/petitioner is apprehending that fair trial may get vitiated if the Complainant/petitioner is not permitted to pursue her own case along with her own counsel. The petitioner has placed reliance on Gyan Singh vs. State of M.P. and Ors. [MANU/MP/0212/2017] and Bhupendra Nath Barik vs. Brahmachari Giri & Ors. [(1976) CRI.L.J. 552].

6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned APP for the state that the instant case was registered on the complaint of complainant (petitioner herein) against her husband, sister-in-laws and brother-in-law. It is further submitted that after completion of investigation, chargesheet in the case was filed against, Rajesh Kapoor (Husband), Rajesh Sachdeva (Brother-in-law), Neelam Kapoor and Shobha Sachdeva (both sister-in-law) and the next date of hearing is 27.05.2022 for prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that the factum of death of Rajesh Kapoor and Neelam Kapoor is verified and Rajesh Kapoor expired on 24.03.2021 and Neelam Kapoor expired on 05.07.2021, as per the Death Certificates, which are placed on record.

7. As far as the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down in the said judgment, but with due regard, the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

8. Section 401(2) Cr.P.C does not give any right to the complainant to be heard in revision before the learned Session's Court and a simple reading of Section 401(2) Cr.P.C reveals that the "other person" must be analogous to an accused who is permitted to participate in the proceedings. The proceedings are to be conducted, keeping in mind that the prosecution in Session's case cannot be conducted by any person other than the learned Public Prosecutor. Reliance can be placed on Vipul Gupta vs State & anr., in Crl. M.C 1163/2021 Dated 06.08.2021, wherein, it was concluded that keeping in mind provisions relating to revision and the relevant case laws, complainant can assist Ld. APP for the state and/or plead her case through Ld. APP for the state.

9. Therefore, in view of the discussions mentioned hereinabove, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated. 23.10.2021 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J FEBRUARY 21, 2022 p Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:22.02.2022 20:02