Delhi High Court - Orders
Manoj Tandon vs State on 25 November, 2020
Author: Suresh Kumar Kait
Bench: Suresh Kumar Kait
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1961/2020 & CRL.M.A. 13999/2020, CRL.M.A.
16290/2020
MANOJ TANDON ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Maninder Singh, Mr. Ajay
Kumar Pipaniya, Ms. Smriti Asmita,
Mr. Imitaz and Dr. Anurupita Kaur,
Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
ORDER
% 25.11.2020 The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner prays as under:
i. Quash/set aside the impugned order dated 17 .01.2018 passed by Ld. MM, District Court, Saket, New Delhi in FIR NO. 439/2011 registered at Police Station Kalkaji for the offences punishable under sections 448/380/41l/420/467/468/47l/506/l20b/174A IPC; ii. Stay the operation of the impugned order dated 17.01.2018 till the pendency of the present petition.
2. While issuing notice, in order dated 12.10.2020, this Court recorded as under:
"4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by Ld. MM, Saket Court, New Delhi is unwarranted and not sustainable in view of the ratio laid down by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case title as Sanjay Bhandari vs. State(Crl. Rev. P. 223/2018), Lawpack (Del) 66436, wherein it was held that "person who is accused of CRL.M.C. 1961/2020 Page 1 of 2 offences other than the ones enumerated in section 82(4) and qua whom a proclamation has been published under section 82(1) would be a 'proclaimed persons' and not deemed 'proclaimed offender'. There is no provisions other than section 82(4) for pronouncing such a person as a proclaimed offender and 82(4) applies only in respect of persons accused of sections of IPC enumerated in the section."
5. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law because in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Justice Deepak Maheshwari in case titled Rishabh Sethi vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Petition No. 5767/2017), wherein it was held that "it is obvious that no reference has been made to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in sub-section (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C., and also of the offence under section 120-B IPC. Unless a person is charged with the offences as mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. and he fails to appear at specified place and time required by the proclamation issued against him, the Court may not pronounce him as a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect."
3. In view of submission and law discussed in abovementioned order dated 12.10.2020 and in the interest of justice, I hereby set aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2018.
4. In view of above, the petition is allowed and disposed of.
5. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
6. It is made clear that if petitioner makes any default for whatsoever reason that will be seriously viewed as the complainant has made lots of efforts to bring the petitioner in judicial process.
7. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J NOVEMBER 25, 2020/ms CRL.M.C. 1961/2020 Page 2 of 2