Rita Pal & ORS v. Balbir Kohli

$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2364/2016 RITA PAL & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Apoorv Lal, Adv.

versus BALBIR KOHLI ..... Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

O R D E R

% 27.06.2016 CRL.MA. 10056/2016 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 2364/2016 1.

This is a petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 7th June, 2016 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge-2 (West) in Crl. Rev. Pet. NO. 13/02/2016 whereby the learned Judge while holding the order passed by the learned trial court as perverse, and imposing a cost of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioners, out of which Rs.10,000/- shall be given to the complainant as an adjournment cost and remaining cost of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited in DLSA, has directed the petitioners herein to appear before the Trial Court on 1st July, 2016 with an appropriate application for cancellation

of NBWs, which shall be cancelled by the trial court on the said date of hearing.

2.

It may be stated here that the aforesaid Revision was filed by petitioners challenging the order dated 23rd May, 2016 passed by learned MM-02 (West)-Delhi whereby the learned MM has issued NBWs against the petitioners herein and issued notice to their sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C. for 29th August, 2016.

3.

It may be stated here that earlier the petitioners herein have filed a petition being Crl.M.C. 5189/2013 before this Court, which was decided on 17th August, 2015, wherein this Court has held that till the time of arguments on the point of framing of charge are heard, the appearance of the petitioners herein be not insisted upon by the trial court provided the petitioners are duly represented through their counsel, who does not seek adjournment. It was also held by this Court that if the petitioners delay the proceedings before the trial court, they will not have the benefit of exemption from personal appearance extended to them by this Court. 4.

It is noted that on 23rd May, 2016, when the matter was listed, the main counsel was not available for the purpose of arguments and it is under those circumstances, NBWs were issued.

5.

Be that as it may, since the ld. Additional Sessions Judge has directed the petitioners to file an application for cancellation of NBWs and which shall be cancelled by the Trial Court on 1st July, 2016, the challenge in the petition to the imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/- was for getting the matter adjourned on 23rd May, 2016 is justified and I do not see any infirmity in the order. The plea of Mr. Apoorv Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were represented by their Counsel and there was no occasion for the trial court to even issue NBWs are concerned, the same is now inconsequential in view of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order.

6.

Accordingly the challenge with the regard to the imposition of cost is without any merit.

7.

The petition is dismissed.

CRL.MA. 10057/2016 In view of the order passed in the petition, instant application has become infructuous and dismissed as such.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J (VACATION JUDGE) JUNE 27, 2016/jg