Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Birwati vs State(Nct Of Delhi) on 1 September, 2014
Bench: J. Chelameswar, A.K. Sikri
ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.9 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).
9685-9686/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/08/2013
in CRLMC No. 2685/2013,27/08/2013 in CRLMC No. 2686/2013 passed by
the High Court Of Delhi At N. Delhi)
BIRWATI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ANR Respondent(s)
(with office report)
Date : 01/09/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Adv.
Mr. Anshul Mittal, Adv.
Ms. Meenu Juneja, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG
Ms. P.K. Dey, Adv.
Ms. Namrata Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Ritu Bharadwaj, Adv.
Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Adv.
Mr. Krishan Kumar,Adv.
Ms. Chavi Sood, Adv.
Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy,Adv.
Mr. T.K. Kaushik, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Mansukhani
Date: 2014.09.04
18:06:06 IST
Reason:
-2-
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (SAROJ SAINI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1896-1897 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 9685-9686/2013) BIRWATI Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ANR Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.
Aggrieved by an order of the Delhi High Court in Crl. M.C No. 2685 of 2013 and Crl. M.C. No. 2686 of 2013, the de-facto complainant in FIR is before us.
The complainant therein lodged an FIR which came to be registered under Sections 468/467/471/120-B read with Section 34 IPC against the respondent no. 2 in each of these appeals. The dispute is regarding the sale of certain property.
Alleging that the dispute is purely civil in nature and, therefore, criminal case is not sustainable, the respondent accused approached the Delhi High Court in the above-mentioned Crl. Miscellaneous cases, it appears that when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the accused did not press the matter before the Delhi High Court but made an alternative prayer that no coercive action be taken against the accused by the State pursuant to the registration of FIR. Initially, an interim order of 15th July, 2013 was passed as follows:-
-2-“...Till then, subject to petitioners joining investigation of this case, they be not arrested in this case.” Therefore, the High Court while declining to quash the FIR, passed an order confirming the interim order referred to above. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:-
“In view of the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the petitioners and the fact that petitioners have already joined the investigation it would be in the fitness of things to confirm the interim order of 15th July, 2013.
Without commenting upon the merits of this case, it is directed that petitioners be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer. IT is made clear that in case petitioners do not join further investigation or do not cooperate with the investigation then respondent/Stae would be at liberty to get this order revoked. Both these petitions and applications are disposed of.” -3- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Pinky Anand, learned ASG for the State and Mr. V. Giri, learned counsel for the respondent accused.
We are of the opinion that where the High Court has declined to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC making orders such as the one in hand, is really not called for. Such a process would tantamount to by-passing the entire criminal procedure code. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order insofar as it confirmed the interim order dated 15th July, 2013 referred to hereinabove.
However, in view of the fact that the respondent accused had the benefit of the above order for more than a year, we deem it appropriate that the respondents accused may not be apprehended for a period of two weeks from today. In the meanwhile, they are entitled to approach the competent Court seeking bail. However, when such an application is made, the concerned Court shall decide the same uninfluenced either by the limited protection granted today or the fact that the accused enjoyed bail for one year and consider the applications purely on merits and disposed of the same in accordance with law.-4-
The appeals are disposed accordingly.
….....................J. (J. CHELAMESWAR) …....................J. (A.K. SIKRI) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 01, 2014