Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: CR No. 271/24
Vipin @ Bhuche v. State Page No. 1 of 8
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLET01-006754-2024
CR No. 271/2024
Vipin @ Bhuche
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar
R/o H. No. 162, Gali No.7
Ambedkar Nagar, Haider Pur
New Delhi
…... Petitioner
Versus
The State Govt.
of N.C.T. of Delhi
…... Respondent
Date of Institution : 28.11.2024
Date of reserving Order : 20.01.2025
Date of pronouncement : 21.01.2025
ORDER
1. By way of the present revision petition, the
petitioner has assailed the impugned orders dated 27.06.2024
and 07.11.2024 passed by the Court of Ld. JMFC, East District,
Karkardooma Court in FIR No. 147/2024, Police Station Mayur
Vihar
, whereby the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was initiated
against the petitioner and application for cancellation of
-- 1 of 8 --
CR No. 271/24
Vipin @ Bhuche v. State Page No. 2 of 8
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of
petitioner was dismissed respectively.
2. Briefly stated, an FIR No. 147/2024, Police Station
Mayur Vihar was registered by the police for offence under
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
‘IPC’) wherein Sections 364/ 147/ 148/ 149/ 120-B IPC were
invoked at later stages. During investigation, NBWs were issued
against present petitioner by Ld. JMFC concerned vide order dated
30.05.2024. Since, the said NBWs remained unexecuted, an
application was moved by the IO before Ld. JMFC concerned for
issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. which application
was allowed vide order dated 27.06.2024. On 20.08.2024, it was
noted by Ld. JMFC concerned that process under Section 82
Cr.P.C. had been duly executed against the petitioner and as the
petitioner failed to attend the Court, he was declared ‘proclaimed
person’. An application for cancellation of process under Section
82 Cr.P.C. was consequently moved by the petitioner before Ld.
JMFC concerned, which application was further dismissed by the
Court vide order dated 07.11.2024.
3. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid orders, the present
revision petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner on inter alia
following grounds:-
(i) That the impugned orders dated 27.06.2024 and
07.11.2024 were passed in arbitrary manner and
are based on conjectures and surmises;
-- 2 of 8 --
CR No. 271/24
Vipin @ Bhuche v. State Page No. 3 of 8
(ii) That Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the
name of petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR
and he was arraigned as an accused on the basis
of disclosure statement of co-accused which is
not admissible in the eyes of law:
(iii) That Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the
petitioner was not served with any summons or
notice either from IO or from Ld. Trial Court and
the factum of issuance of NBWs and process
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. came into his
knowledge much later;
(iv) That Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against
accused Tarun Kumar who is similarly placed as
the petitioner had been quashed by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court on 03.12.2024 vide Crl. MC
No. 6831/2024 and Crl. MA No. 26118/2024, as
such, the proceedings against petitioner are
liable to be set-aside on the grounds of parity.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State opposed
the present revision petition and submitted that due process of law
had been followed by Ld. JMFC concerned while passing the
impugned orders dated 27.06.2024 and 07.11.2024. It was argued
that on 20.05.2024, co-accused Hukum Chand Ravi, who is
relative of petitioner was arrested and he disclosed that petitioner
was also involved in commission of alleged offences and was
clearly identified in the CCTV footage at spot no. 4 i.e. Sheesh
Mahal park. It was argued that during investigation various raids
were conducted at the residence of petitioner by the IO, however,
the petitioner never joined or cooperated in the investigation and
remained absconding. It was argued that the IO was thus,
-- 3 of 8 --
CR No. 271/24
Vipin @ Bhuche v. State Page No. 4 of 8
constrained to move an application for seeking NBWs against
present petitioner besides other accused persons. Vide order dated
30.05.2024, NBWs were duly issued against the present petitioner
and other accused persons by Ld. JMFC concerned. It was argued
that on 09.06.2024 at about 03:38 PM, the police officials duly
visited the house of petitioner at House No. 162 Gali No. 7
Ambedkar Nagar, Haiderpur Delhi where his brother and wife
were found and the copy of process/ NBWs was duly pasted on the
main gate of house of petitioner by the process server ASI Tej
Singh and photographs of the same were also taken. It was argued
that since NBWs issued against the petitioner remained
unexecuted, an application for issuance of process under Section
82 Cr.P.C. was moved by the IO before Ld. JMFC concerned
which application was allowed on 27.06.2024. It was further
argued that on 19.07.2024 at about 05:11 PM, the police officials
pasted the copy of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. on the main
gate of aforesaid house of petitioner in the presence of his mother
and photographs of same were also obtained. DD No. 106 dated
19.07.2024 was also lodged in the digital roznamcha of Police
Station Mayur Vihar in this regard. A proclamation was also issued
in this regard in two newspapers i.e. Times of India (English) and
Lok satta (Hindi) on 19.07.2024.
5. It was argued that the petitioner was duly aware about
issuance of NBWs and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against
him all this while and deliberately chose to conceal himself and
evade the investigation proceedings. It was argued that present
-- 4 of 8 --
CR No. 271/24
Vipin @ Bhuche v. State Page No. 5 of 8
revision petition is thus, time barred as the same was filed after
lapse of statutory period of limitation. It was also argued that the
petitioner cannot seek parity with co-accused Tarun Kumar as
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. qua him were set-aside by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 03.09.2024 on the
ground that he had already filed an application for anticipatory bail
on 16.08.2024 before concerned Ld. ASJ i.e. before being declared
‘proclaimed person’ on 20.08.2024.
6. I have heard the arguments on behalf of petitioner and
Ld. Addl. PP for the State, being Respondent and carefully perused
the record.
7. Suffice it to state, the address of petitioner mentioned
in the NBWs and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is his correct
address as the same address is also mentioned in the memo of
parties of present revision petition i.e. House No. 162, Gali No. 7,
Ambedkar Nagar, Haidarpur, Delhi. It is essentially argued by Ld.
Counsel for petitioner that petitioner was never served with any
notice or summons either from IO or from Ld. Trial Court and the
factum of issuance of NBWs and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
came into his knowledge much later. However, the aforesaid
argument lacks support from the record as it is nowhere mentioned
in the petition as to how and when petitioner gained knowledge of
issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against him. Further,
it is categorically reported by the IO that on 09.06.2024 at about
03:38 PM, the process server visited the house of petitioner where
-- 5 of 8 --
CR No. 271/24
Vipin @ Bhuche v. State Page No. 6 of 8
his brother and wife were found and copy of process/ NBWs were
duly pasted on the main gate of house of petitioner and
photographs were also taken by the process server. Similarly, after
issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the process server
visited the aforesaid house of petitioner on 19.07.2024 at about
05:11 PM and the copy of process was duly pasted on main gate of
house of petitioner in the presence of his mother and photographs
of the same were further taken and DD No. 106 dated 19.07.2024
was also lodged in digital roznamcha of Police Station Mayur
Vihar in this regard. Copy of proclamation was further published
against the petitioner in two newspapers i.e. Times of India
(English) and Lok Satta (Hindi) on 19.07.2024. All the aforesaid
record is duly appended by the IO along his reply to the present
revision petition.
8. It is thus, clear that petitioner was well aware of
issuance of NBWs and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against
him on 09.06.2024 and 19.07.2024 respectively. IO took all
possible care and caution at his command to join petitioner in the
investigation proceedings and the NBWs and consequent process
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was obtained lawfully against the
petitioner. However, he deliberately absconded and concealed
himself to avoid execution of warrants against him.
9. Even otherwise, the present revision petition
challenging the order dated 27.06.2024 is time barred as the same
is filed after expiry of statutory period of 90 days from the date of
-- 6 of 8 --
CR No. 271/24
Vipin @ Bhuche v. State Page No. 7 of 8
the impugned order. The present revision petition is not appended
with any application for condonation of delay. Also, nothing
substantial is brought on record by the petitioner to show that he
was not aware of issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
against him vide order dated 27.06.2024.
10. As regards contention of petitioner that proceedings
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against accused Tarun Kumar who is
similarly placed as the petitioner had been quashed by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court on 03.12.2024 vide Crl. MC No. 6831/2024 and
Crl. MA No. 26118/2024, the same is without any merit in as much
as the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. qua Tarun Kumar were
set-aside by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on the ground that he had
already filed an application for anticipatory bail on 16.08.2024
before concerned Ld. ASJ i.e. before being declared ‘proclaimed
person’ on 20.08.2024. However, in the present case the petitioner
failed to join investigation or appear before Ld. Trial Court prior to
20.08.2024 despite being aware of issuance of NBWs and process
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against him, as is reflected from the
record furnished by the IO.
11. Ld. Trial Court was thus, justified in issuing process
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against petitioner vide order dated
27.06.2024 and dismissing application for cancellation of process
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 07.11.2024. No
infirmity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error is found in the
impugned orders dated 27.06.2024 and 07.11.2024 which warrant
-- 7 of 8 --
CR No. 271/24
Vipin @ Bhuche v. State Page No. 8 of 8
interference of this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition stands
dismissed.
12. Copy of this order along with Trial Court record be
sent back to the Ld. Trial Court for information and compliance.
13. File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
DICTATED AND
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN
COURT ON 21.01.2025
(AKASH JAIN)
ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
This order contains 08 pages and each paper is signed by
me.
(AKASH JAIN)
ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
-- 8 of 8 --