← Library
High Court of DelhiCRL.M.C./1037/2017

Vikas Jain v. State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

2017-03-15Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta4 pages

$32-34 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 1035/2017 VIKAS JAIN Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Ms.

Sonika Tyagi, Advs.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kr. Garg, APP for State! R-1.

+ CRL.M.C. 1036/2017 VIKAS JAIN Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Ms.

Sonika Tyagi, Advs.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kr. Garg, APP for State! R-1.

+ CRL.M.C. 1037/2017 VIKAS JAIN Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Ms.

Sonika Tyagi, Advs.

versus CRL.M.C. Nos. 1035/201 7, 1036/201 7, 103 7/2017& 1038/2017 page 1 of 4 By:AMULYA

V STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kr. Garg, APP for State! R-1.

+ CRL.M.C. 1038!2017 VIKAS JAIN Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Ms.

Sonika Tyagi, Advs.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kr. Garg, APP for State! R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA i 11 flU !1 15.03.2017 Crl.M.A. 4337!2017 in CRL.M.C. 1035!2017 Crl.M.A. 4339!2017 in CRL.M.C. 1036!2017 Crl.M.A. 4341!2017 in CRL.M.C. 1037!2017 Crl.M.A. 4343!2017 in CRL.M.C. 1038!2017 Exemptions allowed subject to just exceptions. Crl.M.A. 4338!2017 in CRL.M.C. 1035/2017 Crl.M.A. 4340!2017 in CRL.M.C. 1036!2017 Crl.M.A. 4342!2017 in CRL.M.C. 1037!2017 Crl.M.A. 4344!2017 in CRL.M.C. 1038!2017 For the reasons stated in the applications 50 days delay in refihing is condoned.

Applications are disposed of.

CRL.M.C. Nos. 1035/2017, 1036/2017, 1037/2017 & 1038/2017 page 2 of 4

CRL.M.C. Nos. 1035/2017, 1036/2017, 1037/2017 & 1038/2017 The petitioner is facing trial in five complaints under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and the four petitions before this Court relate to complaint cases No.1567/1/13, 1601/1/13, 1602/1/13 and 1603/1/13. On 16th December, 2015 the complaints were listed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts and an application under Section 145(2) NI Act was filed on behalf of the petitioner which was allowed and the counsel for the petitioner was asked to cross-examine the complainant. However, since the counsel for the petitioner was busy in the High Court, the cross-examination of the complainant was closed. The petitioner filed applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

which were allowed vide order dated 19th March, 2016 and one opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and the complaints were listed on 2 nd May, 2016 when learned counsel for the petitioner was not available. In the interest of justice the Court adjourned the matter granting last opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant subject to cot of 5000/- in each of the case. The matter was thereafter listed for 25th June, 2016 for complainant's evidence. On 25th June, 2016 the petitioner filed an application for waiver of the cost explaining that he had to go to Ujjain, Indore for urgent work to fulfil the desire of his parents of ritual ceremony of PindDaan of his ancestors on 2nd May, 2015 and hence could not be present.

The Court noted that that despite opportunities the petitioner failed to cross-examine the witness, hence there was no infirmity in imposing the cost, however reduced the same to 3000/- in each of the cases.

CRL.M.C. Nos. 1035/2017, 1036/2017, 1037/2017 & 1038/2017 page 3 of 4

Aggrieved by the order dated 25th June, 2016 the petitioner filed revision petitions before the learned Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts being Criminal Revision Nos. 27/16, 28/165 29/16, 30/16 & 31/16. Allowing the revision petitions vide the impugned order dated 17th September, 2016 the cost was reduced to 2000/- in each of the matters. The limited grievance of the petitioner in the present petitions is imposition of cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that when the matter was listed on 2 nd May, 2016 it was a justifiable reason for him to have S not attended the Court and hence imposition of cost was illegal and the impugned orders are required to be set aside on this count. Having perused the record this Court finds that despite repeated opportunity on one pretext or another the petitioner was not present.

Even if learned counsel for the petitioner was to go to Ujjain on 2 nd May, 2016 he ought to have made an alternative arrangement because it was the last opportunity granted. Considering the fact that the cost has already been reduced to 2000/- in each of the cases, this Court finds no reason to further modify the order impugned.

'

6.

Petitions are dismissed. Order dasti.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

MARCH 15, 2017 'ga'

CRL.M.C. Nos. 1035/2017, 1036/2017, 1037/2017 & 1038/2017 page 4 of 4