Delhi District Court
State vs . Arun Verma on 4 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF VIJETA SINGH RAWAT, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE - 06, (SOUTH), SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
FIR No.: 165/2017
PS Safdarjung Enclave
U/s : 174-A IPC
State Vs. Arun Verma
JUDGMENT
Part A - The lis at a glance A. Serial No. of the Case: 3327/18 B. Date of Commission: Declared absconder vide order dated 29.09.2015.
C. Name of the Complainant: Sh. Gaurav Gupta, MM Saket Court, New Delhi.
D. Name of Accused: Arun Verma S/o. Sh. Om Prakash
Verma, R/o. H. No. 234, Ground Floor,
Shakti Khand-4, Indira Puram,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
E. Offence complained of: 174-A IPC
F. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
G. Final Order: Acquitted.
H. Date of such order: 04.05.2019
I. Date of Institution of Case: 21.07.2018
J. Judgment reserved on 04.05.2019
Part B - A brief statement of reasons for the decision (As mandated u/s 355(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.) State Vs. Arun Verma 1 of 6 FIR No. 165/17 BRIEF FACTS/ STATEMENTS OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION.
1. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused failed to appear at the specified place and specified time as required by a proclamation published under Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C. and was declared an absconder by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 29.09.2015 and thus, committed offence punishable under Section 174-A Indian Penal Code (hereinafter, referred to as "IPC").
2. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 21.07.2018 against the accused for offence punishable u/s 174 IPC.
3. Since Ld. Predecessor of this Court was of the prima facie opinion that offence u/s 174-A IPC was made out against the accused, charge was framed against accused vide order dated 03.10.2018.
4. Prosecution examined the following witnesses in support of its case.
I. PW2 Ct.Dharmender Kumar/Process Server, who had executed process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused, who inter-alia stated that on 04.07.2015, he went to E-14, Vidyut Apartment, Plot No. 2, Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi-110015 to execute process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against accused Dr. Arun Verma, issued in CC No. 141/01/12 pending in the Court of State Vs. Arun Verma 2 of 6 FIR No. 165/17 Ms. Purva Sareen, then Ld. MM, Saket Courts, New Delhi; that on his visit, he met one Mr. Aritra Kundu at the given address, who informed that the owner of the property was Sh. K.L. Bhardwaj and that Sh. Kundu had been residing there since 2013 and that he further stated that he did not know any person by the name of Dr. Arun Verma. He tendered his report Ex.PW- 2/A in evidence. He was duly cross-examined.
II. PW1 IO/ASI Ramhet, who deposed regarding various stages of investigation carried out by him. He tendered the following documents in evidence: -
(a) Order dated 29.09.2015 : Ex.PW-1/1
(b) Order dated 25.04.2017 : Ex.PW-1/A
(c) Application for opening of LOC : Ex.PW-1/D
(d) Application for interrogation and formal arrest : Ex.PW-1/C
(e) Interrogation report : Ex.PW-1/D
5. Prosecution evidence was closed by this Court vide order dated 22.10.2018.
6. Statement of the accused was recorded on 17.12.2012 and accused wished to lead defence evidence.
7. The accused examined himself as DW-1 and interalia stated that he is a Doctor by profession and was working with Safdarjung Hospital from 25.01.2005 to 24.01.2008; that on 11.11.2009, he State Vs. Arun Verma 3 of 6 FIR No. 165/17 went to Saudi Arabia for work and returned on 11.10.2010 ; that again on 29.04.2011, he left for Oman and returned on 30.05.2014, during which period, he visited India 2- 3 times; that on 16.06.2014, he went to USA for further studies and returned to India on 30.07.2015; that thereafter, he joined Apollo Hospital; that since January, 2018, he is again working with Ministry of Health, Saudi Arabia; that in November, 2011, when he was in Oman, his family shifted to Ghaziabad; that he never received the summons in the complaint case in which he was declared an absconder and that it was only in February, 2018, that he was informed by his father about the pendency of the matter, when the police visited the home. He was duly cross-examined by the State.
8. Defence evidence was closed vide order dted 21.12.2018.
9. Final arguments have been heard today.
10. Material on record has been considered.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS/CONTENTIONS/ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
11. To seek conviction under Section 174-A IPC, the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubts that the accused failed to appear before the Court within the stipulated period despite issuance of proclamation under Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C. However, the non-appearance has to be intentional upon service State Vs. Arun Verma 4 of 6 FIR No. 165/17 of the proclamation. Perusal of material on record shows that accused was declared an absconder on 29.09.2015 pursuant to a process Ex.PW-2/A issued on 29.06.2015 at a H. No. E-14, Vidyut Apartment, Plot No. 2, Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi. As per PW-1, it was only in January, 2018 that the complainant Sh. Virender Kumar Gupta furnished the Ghaziabad address of the accused. Thus, from the issuance of process till declaration of the accused as an absconder, the address on record of the accused was of Dwarka, New Delhi. It is a defence raised that the aforesaid property was tenanted and vacated in November, 2011 by the family of the accused, when he was working in Oman. PW-2 has stated that when he visited the premises, he found some other resident by the name of Aritra Kundu, who stated that he was residing there in 2013. The summons had been issued by the concerned Court for the first time on 25.09.2013 by when, it is apparent from the prosecution evidence itself that the family of theaccused had left the given address. Even subsequently, the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued at the Dwarka address itself. The accused has by way of Ex.DW-1/1 has shown that he had not been in India during the relevant periods. Hence, the defence has been able to raise reasonable doubts on the case of the prosecution whether there was proper service of proclamation upon him and thereafter, the accused willfully /intentionally did not appear before the Court.
12. In view of the above discussions, the accused is acquitted of the offence charged with. After compliance of Section 437A State Vs. Arun Verma 5 of 6 FIR No. 165/17 Cr.P.C on furnishing of bail bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith one surety, file be consigned to records.
Announced in the open Court (Ms. VIJETA SINGH)
04.05.2019 MM-06 (South), Saket Court,
New Delhi
State Vs. Arun Verma 6 of 6
FIR No. 165/17