Delhi District Court
Cr No. 80/14 "Neera Malik @ Neera Mahajan vs . State" on 9 October, 2014
CR No. 80/14 "Neera Malik @ Neera Mahajan Vs. State"
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN, ASJ-04
SOUTH WEST, DWARKA ,NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.80/14
In the matter of:
Neera Malik @ Neera Mahajan
D/o Late Sh. C.R. Mahajan
R/o M-11, Top Floor,
Lajpat Nagar- III,
New Delhi-110024. ... Revisionist
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ... Respondent
Date of institution of Revision : 07.08.2014
Date on which judgment reserved : 01.10.2014
Date on which judgment pronounced : 09.10.2014
ORDER
1. By present order I will dispose off a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the revisionist U/s 397 Cr.P.C against the order dated 18.07.2014 and 28.07.2014 passed by the Ld. Trial Court directing the petitioner to deposit her Passport and Green Card after imposing the condition not to leave the country without intimating the Court.
Criminal Revision Page 1 of 6 CR No. 80/14 "Neera Malik @ Neera Mahajan Vs. State"
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the revisionist is arrayed as an accused in case U/s 406/498A/34 IPC in FIR no. 90/14 PS Dwarka South on the complaint of Kanchan Rana. The complainant Kanchan Rana filed an application before the Ld. Trial Court for expediting the investigation of the said case and for cancellation of passport of the revisionist as well as accused Gaurav Malik and seizure of passport of the revisionist.
3. The Ld. Trial Court after hearing the revisionist as well as the complainant passed an order dated 18.07.2014 directing the revisionist to bring copies of her new passport and Green Card and also to bring the original for perusal of the Court. On 28.07.2014 the revisionist did not appear before the Ld. Trial Court nor filed copies of her passport and Green Card, as such, the Ld. Trial Court passed a direction for the investigation officer to ensure that the revisionist does not leave the Country before the completion of the investigation and without prior permission of the Court.
4. The orders dated 18.07.2014 and 28.07.2014 are challenged on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court miserably failed to appreciate that the revisionist is the mother-in-law of the complainant and had joined the investigation before Woman Cell, however, the complainant with an utter Criminal Revision Page 2 of 6 CR No. 80/14 "Neera Malik @ Neera Mahajan Vs. State"
motive in order to create pressure upon the revisionist moved the application before the Ld. Trial Court. It is stated that the Trial Court had no authority to direct the investigation of the case or the manner of investigation. The directions were passed by the Court despite fact that the revisionist was also available at her home.
5. The revisionist has further stated that the revisionist was already granted the anticipatory bail and while passing order for the bail no condition was imposed upon the revisionist but Ld. Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction while passing impugned order. Thus, it has been prayed that impugned order dated 18.07.2014 and 28.07.2014 be set aside.
6. The notice of the revision petition was given to the complainant. The complainant has contested the present petition by contending that the son of the revisionist has already flee the country and chances are that the revisionist may also go to USA and may not come back to avoid the present FIR registered against her. It has been contended that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court AIR 1978 SC 47 and AIR 1980 SC 962 the present revision petition is not maintainable.
Criminal Revision Page 3 of 6 CR No. 80/14 "Neera Malik @ Neera Mahajan Vs. State"
7. During the proceedings of the present petition the revisionist was directed to bring her original passport and Green Card. The revisionist produced the same. A copy of the Green Card and her passport is taken on record and is kept in a sealed envelop.
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
9. The main contention of the revisionist is that the Ld. Trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while directing that the process of opening a LOC against the revisionist be initiated and IO to ensure that the revisionist does not leave the country before completion of the investigation and not without permission of the Court.
10. The Hon'ble High of Court of Delhi in case titled as Sumer Singh Salkan Vs. Astt. Director & Ors. ILR (2010) 6 Del 706, has answered the question as to under what circumstances the LOC can be issued as under:
A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.
Criminal Revision Page 4 of 6 CR No. 80/14 "Neera Malik @ Neera Mahajan Vs. State"
B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect.
C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.O. or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.
D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts' jurisdiction in affirming or canceling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs.
11. As per the record, the revisionist was very much available in India. There was no material before the Ld Trial Court to believe that the revisionist was deliberately avoiding to join the investigation. As such, the Ld. Trial Court ought not to have passed the direction for issuance of LOC against the revisionist as the same were against the norms as settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the above noted case. Thus, the Ld. Trial Court committed material irregularity while passing the orders to issue a process of LOC against the revisionist. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the LOC already issued against the revisionist pursuant to the said orders is hereby stands recalled.
Criminal Revision Page 5 of 6 CR No. 80/14 "Neera Malik @ Neera Mahajan Vs. State"
12. It has been submitted on behalf of the contesting parties that the charge-sheet has already filed before the Trial Court, as such, I do not find any error in the directions passed by the Ld. Trial Court for the revisionist to take permission of the Court before leaving the country.
13. With the above stated directions the present revision petition stands disposed off.
TCR be sent back with copy of Order and sealed envelope containing the the copies of Green Card and passport of the revisionist. The Trial Court may open the envelope as and when it is required.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 9th October, 2014.
(Gautam Manan) ASJ-04/Dwarka Courts New Delhi Criminal Revision Page 6 of 6 CR No. 80/14 "Neera Malik @ Neera Mahajan Vs. State"
09.10.2014:
Present: None Vide separate orders, the present revision petition stands partly allowed.
The application of seeking the initiation of contempt proceedings is dismissed.
TCR be sent back with copy of Order.
File be consigned to record room.
(Gautam Manan) ASJ-04/Dwarka/New Delhi 09.10.2014 Criminal Revision Page 7 of 6 CR No. 80/14 "Neera Malik @ Neera Mahajan Vs. State"
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN, ASJ-04 SOUTH WEST, DWARKA ,NEW DELHI Criminal Revision No.80/14 In the matter of:
Neera Malik @ Neera Mahajan Vs. State ORDER
1. By present order I will dispose off an application filed on behalf of the revisionist seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the IO as well as the Trial Court.
2. In this application the revisionist has stated that the impugned order dated 18.07.2014 and 28.07.2014 passed by the Ld. Trial Court was stayed by this Court vide orders dated 07.08.2014. It is stated that despite the stay granted by the Court, the LOC was issued against the revisionist. It is stated that the said LOC has been opened in sheer contempt of the Court orders and hence action should be initiated against respondents for flouting the Court order.
3. I have considered on submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and have considered the record.
Criminal Revision Page 8 of 6
CR No. 80/14 "Neera Malik @ Neera Mahajan Vs. State"
4. I am of the view that since directions in the revision petition has already been passed that the LOC issued against the revisionist stands recalled, as such, no further orders are required to be passed on the present application. The same stands disposed off accordingly. Announced in the open court on 9th October, 2014.
(Gautam Manan) ASJ-04/Dwarka Courts New Delhi Criminal Revision Page 9 of 6