Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Sh. C.L. Bhardwaj vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 21 July, 2012

IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR: ADDL SESSIONS 
                            JUDGE­03: NW : ROHINI : DELHI

Criminal Revision No. 32/12


Sh. C.L. Bhardwaj
s/o late Harphool Singh
Presently posted at DIU  North West,
Delhi                                                 ..................Petitioner

Versus 


The State (NCT of Delhi)                              ..................Respondent



J U D G E M E N T

1. The present revision petition has been filed u/s 397 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 26­05­2012 passed by the Court of Sh. Vidya Parkash, Ld. ACMM, North - West, Delhi.

2. TCR has already been summoned. I have heard Shri Vikram Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, Shri Vikram Saini, Ld. Counsel for complainant and Ld. APP for the State /respondent and have perused the entire record.

3. The brief facts as set out in the revision petition are that the final report / closure report was filed by the petitioner after Crl. R. No. 32/12 C.L. Bhardwaj Vs. State Page 1 of 5 comprehensive investigation in the FIR which was got registered on the complaint of Shri Kanwar Lal Gupta s/o Late Banarsi Lal Gupta. Subsequently, upon investigation, the closure report was filed by the petitioner finding insufficient evidence to charge sheet the alleged persons and same was placed before the Ld. ACMM. Ld. ACMM issued notice to the complainant and thereafter on 28.4.2012, Counsel for complainant filed a protest petition against the closure report. On 26.5.2012, Ld. ACMM asked the petitioner to file his reply to the protest petition already filed by the complainant to the closure report. The petitioner asked for the copy of protest petition enabling him to file reply to the same. Ld. ACMM opined that the copy of the protest petition was already supplied to the petitioner on 28.4.2012 and by referring the said order sheet, imposed a cost of Rs.1000/­ upon the petitioner to be deducted from his salary. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved an application for waiver of cost on 28.5.2012 stating therein that he was totally ignorant of the order sheet dated 28.4.2012 but the Ld. ACMM declined the said prayer of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner/ revisionist has taken the grounds Crl. R. No. 32/12 C.L. Bhardwaj Vs. State Page 2 of 5 among others in the revision petition that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there can be human error on the part of the Stenographer of the said court and has not considered the prayer of the petitioner. The Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated that the petitioner being a law abiding citizen and member of Law Enforcing Agency would not have deliberately avoided to file reply. The Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that even the closure report itself is a reply to the protest petition and there was no necessity of imposing cost. The copy of the protest petition was never supplied to the petitioner and there was no receiving or acknowledgement regarding the receipt of protest petition either with the counsel for complainant or in the judicial file.

5. Further, the cost imposed upon the petitioner would cause hardship and grave hurdle in the future prospects of the petitioner being a government servant. The impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures. The impugned order is therefore bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 26.5.2012 reveals that copy of the protest petition was duly supplied to IO Inspector Crl. R. No. 32/12 C.L. Bhardwaj Vs. State Page 3 of 5 C.L. Bhardwaj and he was directed to file reply positively by next date of hearing which was fixed for 26.5.2012 but despite the directions of the Ld. ACMM, the IO did not file reply to the protest petition filed by the complainant against the closure report. The copy of the protest petition received by the IO - revisionist herein is also mentioned in the order dated 28.4.2012 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Meaning thereby, the IO - revisionist herein did not bother to comply with the directions of the Ld. Trial Court and taken it as he shall file the reply to the protest petition according to his own convenience. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 26.5.2012 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The separate statement given by the revisionist in this court that his closure report filed in the Ld. Trial Court be treated as his reply to the protest petition does not support the case of revisionist herein since the Ld. Trial Court imposed the cost of Rs. 1000/­ on the revisionist to be recovered from his salary for non - compliance of the order of the Ld. Trial Court. The judgment reported as Pitamber Prusty, petitioner V. State of Orissa, respondent, 1992 CRI LJ 2890 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Crl. R. No. 32/12 C.L. Bhardwaj Vs. State Page 4 of 5 TCR along with copy of this order be sent back and thereafter revision file be consigned to Record Room. 

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT              (YASHWANT KUMAR
     st
on 21  July, 2012               ASJ/NW­03/ROHINI/DELHI




Crl. R. No. 32/12  C.L. Bhardwaj Vs. State                                 Page 5 of 5