Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Neeraj Kumar Singh Vs State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

16.12.2008
Present: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Singh for the petitioner.
Mr. U.L.Watwani, APP for the State.

Crl. M.A. NO. 14649/2008

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl. M.C. NO. 3931/2008
By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 12.11.2008 and 24.11.2008
passed by the M.M., Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
Counsel for the petitioner states that three complaint cases
filed by the same respondent against the present petitioner were fixed before
the trial court on 12.11.2008 and in all the three cases the petitioner moved
application seeking his exemption from personal appearance. Counsel submits
that the petitioner was allowed exemption in the other two cases but as far as
the present case is concerned, the court had directed NBWs against the
petitioner through SHO returnable on 29.4.2008. Counsel further submits that
after passing of the said order, the petitioner moved another application under
Section 205 r/w Section 317 Cr.P.C. and under Section 70 Cr.P.C. to seek
cancellation of his NBWs and for grant of permanent exemption. The court
after hearing the arguments on the said application gave direction for the
personal presence of the accused petitioner at the time of hearing of his
application. The court also gave directions for the application to be
disposed of in the presence of the complainant/respondent and not in his
absence. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the
learned M.M. ought to have allowed the application of the petitioner seeking
his exemption in the present case as well while his exemption was allowed in
the other two cases. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgments of this court in Suresh V. Chaturvedi Vs. M/s. AES Control Pvt. Ltd.,
2003 V AD (Delhi) 145 and Prem Cashew Industries and Ors. Vs.Zen Paroo, 2000
III AD (Crl.)DHC 447 to contend that the court is not required to insist the
presence of the accused before dealing with his application seeking
cancellation of NBWs.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at great length.
Notice be issued to the respondent, returnable on 24.3.2009.
Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioner the impugned orders shall stand stayed till the next date.
DASTI.


December 16, 2008 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
mg

1 comment:

Unknown said...

498a is legal terrorism
125 crpc is legal extortion
DV(RTR) is legal tresspassing