Ajay Chopra & ORS. v. State

$~22 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 3493/2018 AJAY CHOPRA & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through Mr Kunal Kalra, Advocate along with petitioner in person.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr Avi Singh, ASC with Mr Tanuj Bhadana, Advocate.

SI Vijay Kumar, P.S. Prashant Vihar.

Ms Sonika Tyagi, Advocate for R2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 16.10.2019 1.

The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to the respondent to undertake necessary investigation and invoke appropriate provisions against the accused persons in accordance with law.

2.

The present petition relates to an incident that is alleged to have occurred within the precincts of the Rohini Court Complex on 01.09.2018. The petitioners had complained that they had been physically assaulted by persons including practicing advocates. An FIR in regard to the said incident being FIR No. 419/2018 was registered with P.S. Prashant Vihar. The petitioners are aggrieved since they claim that the injuries suffered by them were grievous and they had been beaten by dandas, pipes and belts; and

therefore, appropriate provisions ought to be invoked. 3.

The status report has been filed which indicates that after the medical opinion was obtained, Section 325 of the IPC has been invoked. It is also stated that the alleged accused - Deepak Budhiraja, Rohit Khera and Rajesh Kaushik, Advocates - have joined investigations and are being examined. In view of the above, the petitioner's grievance that appropriate action has not been taken, is unmerited.

4.

The status report also indicates that adequate protection has been granted to the petitioners and steps have been taken to ensure the safety of litigants and lawyers in and outside court premises. 5.

Petitioner no. 1 had also complained that his mobile had been snatched. In this regard, the status report indicates that the same has been put on surveillance and if the same is activated, efforts would be made to recover the same.

6.

This Court had also passed an order impleading the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD). Further directions were also issued to the learned District Judge, Rohini to look into the matter and submit a report. 7.

The learned counsel appearing for BCD states that proceedings have been initiated against the delinquent advocates and necessary action would be taken in accordance with law. In this view, no further orders are required to issued to BCD.

8.

Pursuant to the orders dated 16.11.2018, the learned District Judge, Rohini has also forwarded a report regarding the safety and security of lawyers and litigants in court premises. The same is taken on record.

9.

Mr Avi Singh, learned ASC states, on instructions, that a charge sheet would be filed within a period of three weeks from today. The respondent is bound down to the said statement.

10.

In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in this petition. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 11.

It is clarified that all contentions of the concerned parties are reserved. VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 16, 2019 pkv