Interim Order 29

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-000564-2023
I.A. No. 1/2026
CC No. 49/2023
FIR No. 205/2013
PS: Parliament Street
State Vs. Jagdish Chander (Absconder)
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application seeking
cancellation/stay of proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. initiated,
vide order dated 25.11.2016, moved by applicant/accused
Jagdish Chander.
2. Reply to the aforesaid application has already been filed on
behalf of State.
3. I have duly considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of both the sides in the light of material available on
record.
4. Shorn off unnecessary details, FIR in question came to be
registered u/s 420/406/120B IPC read with Section 13 of
PC Act,1988 against the applicant/accused Jagdish
Chander at PS Parliament Street.
5. During the course of investigation, the applicant/accused
did not join the investigation and evaded coercive process
issued against him, as a result of which, he was declared
absconder, vide order dated 27.03.2018 passed by Ld.
Predecessor of this Court.
St. Vs. Jagdish Chander, Etc. Page no. 1 of 7
-- 1 of 7 --
6. Now adverting back to the application under consideration.
It is stated in the application and is also argued on behalf
of applicant/accused that he is presently suffering from
mental health condition i.e. clinical depression and acute
anxiety disorder, due to which, he is presently under
continuous medical supervision and treatment and his
deteriorated health condition has substantially diminished
his capacity to endure the rigors of ongoing
trial/proceedings at this stage. It is further stated in the
application and is also argued on his behalf that his wife is
also suffering from bipolar disorder, which is a serious
psychiatric ailment and thus, she requires constant care,
supervision and medical attention, for which, she requires
presence and support of the applicant/accused. In support
of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused
also referred to and relied upon copies of purported
medical treatment record annexed with the application.
7. While referring to the enquiry report dated 18.01.2021 of
Enquiry Officer in the said departmental enquiry, as filed
along with the application in hand, Ld. Counsel further
argued that in the departmental enquiry initiated against
the applicant/accused, there were 16 articles of charge, out
of which, charge in respect of 14 articles were found to be
unsubstantiated and remaining two articles were held to be
partially proved, but even said two articles did not pertain
to any criminal misconduct. He further contended that said
enquiry report has already been accepted by Ministry of
Tourism. He further submitted that the applicant/accused
St. Vs. Jagdish Chander, Etc. Page no. 2 of 7
-- 2 of 7 --
was not exonerated in the departmental enquiry at the time
of dismissal of his previous similar application by Ld.
Predecessor of this Court; and his exoneration in the
departmental proceedings, thus, affords him fresh ground
to move the application under consideration and
continuation of proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against him,
would amount to violation of his fundamental right as
granted under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India, in as much as, he cannot be made to face criminal
trial on same set of allegations, for which he has already
been exonerated in the departmental proceedings initiated
against him by his department. He, therefore, urged that
the proceedings/proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. qua
applicant/accused may be cancelled.
8. Per contra, the application was strongly opposed on behalf
of State through Ld. Chief PP, who argued that the
application in hand is not maintainable under the law in
view of dismissal of his similar previous application, vide
order dated 25.11.2016 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this
Court, as said order was never challenged by the
applicant/accused before superior Court and thus, has
already attained finality under the law.
9. On merits, Ld. Chief PP opposed the application on the
ground that entire conduct of the applicant/accused has
been negligent throughout the proceedings and he is
deliberately and intentionally concealing himself while
residing abroad and is evading the process of aw, by not
submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the Court. He
St. Vs. Jagdish Chander, Etc. Page no. 3 of 7
-- 3 of 7 --
further argued that there are serious allegations against the
applicant/accused and his custodial interrogation would be
required in this matter. He further pointed out that the
applicant/accused, with malafide intention, gifted his
immovable property i.e. Flat No. A-203, Sector-4, Plot No.
23, Chanakya Apartments, Dwarka, New Delhi, which was
attached and sealed in execution of process u/s 83 Cr.P.C.,
issued by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, to his nephew
Sh. Harbaksh Singh, by creating sham transaction in order
to avoid the attachment proceedings.
10. Ld. Chief PP also opposed the application on the ground
that similar grounds relating to ill health of
applicant/accused and of his wife, were taken by the
applicant in his previous similar application moved on
01.06.2017; and also on the ground that so called medical
documents annexed along with the application, are not of
recent origin. He, therefore, urged that the application in
hand may be dismissed.
11. Record shows that similar application dated 05.09.2016
seeking cancellation of proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. moved
by the applicant/accused, was dismissed, vide order dated
25.11.2016 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
Record also shows that even after dismissal of aforesaid
application, the applicant/accused Jagdish Chander
preferred not to join the investigation and/or to submit
himself to the jurisdiction of this Court, which led to
issuance of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against him; and
ultimately, he was declared absconder, vide order dated
St. Vs. Jagdish Chander, Etc. Page no. 4 of 7
-- 4 of 7 --
27.03.2018 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
12. Not only this, the applicant/accused had also moved yet
another application for recalling of order of proceedings
u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. on 01.06.2017 by Ld. Predecessor of this
Court. It is reflected from the proceedings dated
21.11.2017 that Counsel for the applicant/accused had
submitted before Ld. Predecessor of this Court that he
would seek instructions from the applicant/accused as to
when he would join the investigation, however, the
applicant/accused still failed to join the investigation and
keeping in view his entire conduct, his said application
was also dismissed on 27.03.2018 by Ld. Predecessor of
this Court and the applicant/accused was accordingly
declared as absconder. Still, the applicant/accused neither
challenged any of the orders dated 25.11.2016; or
27.03.2018 (supra), before any superior Court, nor opted
to join the investigation or to surrender himself before the
Court of law till date. As rightly pointed out by Ld. Chief
PP for State, both the said orders have already attained
finality under the law.
13. Be that as it may, the application in hand is completely
silent as regards the contumacious conduct on the part of
applicant/accused in not joining the investigation
throughout the period since after the date of registration of
FIR in question till date. As per the allegations appearing
against the applicant/accused, while he was working as
Group-A Officer and was holding the post of Assistant
Director General in the Ministry of Tourism from
St. Vs. Jagdish Chander, Etc. Page no. 5 of 7
-- 5 of 7 --
08.04.2008 to 07.04.2011 at ITO, London, he had abused
his official position and was involved in various irregular
activities/acts of criminal conspiracy and caused huge loss
to State Exchequer by siphoning off funds.
14. In order to appreciate the submissions made by Ld. Chief
PP for State that similar plea regarding ill health of
applicant/accused and his wife, was raised by him in his
previous similar application, the Court has also gone
through his previous application and finds that even in the
said application, he had alleged that he was suffering from
ill health and was undergoing medical treatment. As
already noted above, the said application was moved by
him in September 2016. That being so, it was not only
expected from him, but was also necessary to place copies
of his medical treatment records, as also that of his wife
from the year 2016 till date, which is not the case herein.
Alongwith the application under consideration, the
applicant/accused has annexed only purported report
regarding outcome of his Assessment and Treatment Plan
dated 19.06.2025 as Annexure A-1, whereby he has been
advised to attend Sessions in connection with his medical
treatment. However, the said document nowhere provides
that the mental or health condition of applicant/accused is
such that he cannot be allowed to travel; or that he is, as
such, totally confined to bed; or that he is suffering from
any life threatening disease. Similar is the case with regard
to the purported medical treatment documents of his wife,
as are filed as Annexure A-2 along with the application in
St. Vs. Jagdish Chander, Etc. Page no. 6 of 7
-- 6 of 7 --
hand. Moreover, the said documents bear the dates of
19.08.2024, 10.10.2024 and 24.12.2024. In other words,
no latest medical treatment record of wife of the
applicant/accused, has been annexed along with the
application; or produced during the course of arguments, in
order to substantiate the averments made in the application
in hand. It would clearly show that the application in hand
is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
15. In view of foregoing reasons and the discussion made
herein above and keeping in view the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, including the above noted
conduct on the part of applicant/accused, as reflected from
the proceedings available on record and in the absence of
any sufficient ground being shown or disclosed by him
while seeking cancellation of proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C.,
the Court is of the opinion that the application in hand is
totally bereft of any merit. Consequently, the application is
hereby dismissed.
Announced in open Court
on 08th April, 2026
(Vidya Prakash)
Special Judge, PC Act (ACB)-01
RACC, New Delhi
St. Vs. Jagdish Chander, Etc. Page no. 7 of 7
-- 7 of 7 --