← Library
High Court of DelhiCRL.M.C./2896/2016

Aruna Varma v. State & ANR

2016-11-02Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta3 pages

6# to 10# $~ *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 2893/2016 and Crl.M.A. No. 12442/2016 (Stay) ARUNA VARMA Petitioner Represented by:

Rajtilak Guha Roya, proxy counsel.

versus STATE & ANR Respondents Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State.

+ CRL.M.C. 2894/2016 and Crl.M.A. No. 12444/2016 (Stay) ARUNA VARMA Petitioner Represented by:

Rajtilak Guha Roya, proxy counsel.

versus STATE (GOVT OF NCTOF DELHI) & ANR Respondents Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State.

+ CRL.M.C. 2895/2016 and Crl.M.A. No. 12446/2016 (Stay) ARUNA VARMA Petitioner Represented by: Rajtilak Guha Roya, proxy counsel.

versus STATE & ANR.

Respondents Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State.

+ CRL.M.C. 2896/2016 and Crl.M.A. No. 12448/2016 (Stay) ARUNA VARMA Petitioner Represented by: Rajtilak Guha Roya, proxy counsel.

versus CRL.M.C. 2893/2016, 2894/2016, 2895/2016, 2896/2016 & 2897/2016 page lof3 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

STATE & ANR Respondents Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State.

+ CRL.M.C. 2897/2016 and Crl.M.A. No. 12450/2016 (Stay) ARUNA VARMA Petitioner Represented by: Rajtilak Guha Roya, proxy counsel.

versus STATE & ANR Respondents Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

ORDER

% 02.11.2016 1.

These petitions were for the first time listed on 11^ August, 2016 when this Court passed the following order:

"By these petitions the petitioner challenges the order dismissing his application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. with cost. The defence of the petitioner is pending before the learned Trial Court under the 5 complaint cases under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act since 2011. Today when the matter is listed for the first time for admission before this Court, learned proxy counsel says that learned counsel for the petitioner is unwell and seeks an adjournment.

Renotify on 2"'^ November, 2016 subject to the petitioner depositing a cost of ^5,000/- in each petition with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee before the next date of hearing. "

CRL.M.C 2893/2016, 2894/2016, 2895/2016, 2896/2016 & 2897/2016

2.

Applications were filed by the petitions for early hearing of the petitions and waiver of the cost which were dismissed by this Court on 19^ October, 2016. Till date the cost as imposed vide order dated 11^ August, 2011 has not been deposited in any of the matters. 3.

Today on the first call learned proxy counsel for the petitioner was present and stated that the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petitions and application however, his vakalatnama was not on record and the counsel whose vakalatnama was on record was not present. Hence this Court could not permit withdrawal of the petitions. The matter was passed-over for calling the counsel whose vakalatnama is on record. However on the second call the learned counsel for the petitioner is still not available. 4.

Petitions and applications are dismissed with further cost of ? 10,000/- each to be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. In case the costs are not deposited by the petitioner within four weeks from today, the same be recovered as per law.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

NOVEMBER 02, 2016 'vn'

CRL.M.C. 2893/2016, 2894/2016, 2895/2016, 2896/2016 & 2897/2016