Subhash vs.state (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Subhash vs State (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Oct 04, 2018

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1218430

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1218430
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Oct 04, 2018
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subhash

Respondent

State (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Excerpt

.....simultaneous process under sections is not permissible in law and the impugned order shows complete non application of mind. it is submitted that prior to an order under section 83 being passed court crl.m.c.4928/2018 page 2 of 4 has to record satisfaction that process under section 82 has been completed and sufficient time has been given to the proclaimed person to appear before the trial court.7. learned senior counsel further contends that the petitioner was not aware of any non-bailable warrants having been issued. the petitioner is willing to join investigation and as and when so required by the investigating officer.8. learned app for the state submits that there was due cause for the investigating officer to seek initiation of process under sections 82 and 83.9. on perusal of the record, i am satisfied that due process as mandated by sections 82 and 83 was not followed prior to the impugned orders being passed.10. on 22.06.2018, petitioner was represented before the trial court and the court directed the petitioner to join investigation at the earliest, inter alia to specify the location for securing the cctv footage. no time or date was fixed by the trial court directing the petitioner to join investigation.11. record does not reveal that any steps were taken by the investigating officer after the order was passed requiring the petitioner to join investigation and that the accused failed to comply with the same. further, record does not reveal the steps taken for crl.m.c.4928/2018 page 3 of 4 execution of the non-bailable warrants.12. a composite order under sections is not permissible in law. prior to an order under section 83 being passed there has to be an order under section 82 and the process as prescribed therein followed. it is only after the court is satisfied that the process under section 82 has been followed and the circumstances so warrant that court can pass an order under section 83 cr pc. admittedly in the present case, this course has not.....

Full Judgment

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 4928/2018 & Crl. M A No.33544/2018 Judgment delivered on:

04. 10.2018 SUBHASH STATE Advocates who appeared in this case: versus ........ Petitioner

..... Respondent For the... Petitioner

: For the... RESPONDENTS

: Ms. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Pandey and Ms.Anushruti Tripathi, Advocates Mr. Raghuvinder Varma, APP for State Mr. Pawan Sharma with Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant along with complainant, in person. Insp. Mahinder Lal, PS:Govindpuri CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT0410.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner

impugns order dated 31.08.2018 of the Revisional Court dismissing the Review Petition filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 16.07.2018, whereby process under Sections
of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated against the petitioner in FIR No.193/2018.

2. Subsequent to the said orders, order dated 06.09.2018 has been Crl.M.C.4928/2018 Page 1 of 4 passed being a consequential order to the order dated 16.07.2018 declaring the petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that there was no cause for the Trial Court to initiate process under section
Cr PC and further to declare the petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender.

4. Learned Senior counsel further contends that on 22.06.2018, counsel for the petitioner was present in Court and petitioner was directed to join investigation.

5. It is submitted that without requiring the petitioner to join investigation, the Investigating officer on the same date moved an application for issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. Further, on 16.07.2018, an application was moved for issuance of process under Sections
of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that warrants could not be executed against the petitioner.

6. It is contended that no efforts were made to trace out the petitioner and there was no notice directing the petitioner to join investigation. Further, it is further submitted that simultaneous process under Sections
is not permissible in law and the impugned order shows complete non application of mind. It is submitted that prior to an order under section 83 being passed court Crl.M.C.4928/2018 Page 2 of 4 has to record satisfaction that process under Section 82 has been completed and sufficient time has been given to the proclaimed person to appear before the Trial Court.

7. Learned Senior counsel further contends that the petitioner was not aware of any non-bailable warrants having been issued. The petitioner is willing to join investigation and as and when so required by the Investigating Officer.

8. Learned APP for the State submits that there was due cause for the Investigating Officer to seek initiation of process under Sections 82 and 83.

9. On perusal of the record, I am satisfied that due process as mandated by Sections 82 and 83 was not followed prior to the impugned orders being passed.

10. On 22.06.2018, petitioner was represented before the Trial Court and the court directed the petitioner to join investigation at the earliest, inter alia to specify the location for securing the CCTV footage. No time or date was fixed by the Trial Court directing the petitioner to join investigation.

11. Record does not reveal that any steps were taken by the Investigating Officer after the order was passed requiring the petitioner to join investigation and that the accused failed to comply with the same. Further, record does not reveal the steps taken for Crl.M.C.4928/2018 Page 3 of 4 execution of the non-bailable warrants.

12. A composite order under Sections
is not permissible in law. Prior to an order under section 83 being passed there has to be an order under section 82 and the process as prescribed therein followed. It is only after the court is satisfied that the process under section 82 has been followed and the circumstances so warrant that court can pass an order under section 83 Cr PC. Admittedly in the present case, this course has not been adopted and court has passed a composite order under section 82 and 83 Cr PC.

13. Learned APP for the State submits that without getting into the controversy, the petitioner be directed to appear before the Investigating officer.

14. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.07.2018, the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner and the order dated 06.09.2018 are quashed.... Petitioner

is directed to appear before the Investigating officer on 08.10.2018 at 4:00 P.M. at Police Station Govind Puri.

15. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

16. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master. OCTOBER04 2018 ‘prem’ Crl.M.C.4928/2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J Page 4 of 4

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Subhash vs State (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) & Anr. Same Subject Land Acquisition