Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
Ritu Jain - Appellant
Versus
State and another - Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1266 of 2019
Decided On : 01-05-2019
NBWs - Criminal Complaint - Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 - Section 25, Section 27 - The court discussed the issuance and cancellation of non-bailable warrants against the accused, the petitioner's failure to appear before the court, and the legal implications of the orders passed by the High Court of Delhi. The court emphasized the requirement for the petitioner to appear before the court, seek bail, and comply with the orders, and granted one opportunity for the petitioner to rectify the mistake.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order issuing non-bailable warrants against them in a criminal complaint under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. The petitioner failed to appear before the court despite previous orders and filed a petition seeking quashing of the complaint, which was dismissed with a cost imposed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's failure to appear before the court and seek bail justified the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The court granted one opportunity for the petitioner to rectify the mistake by appearing before the court and seeking bail, subject to further cost to be paid to the private respondent.
Issues: Non-appearance of the petitioner, issuance and cancellation of non-bailable warrants, compliance with court orders, and the petitioner's petition seeking quashing of the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's failure to comply with court orders and appear before the court justified the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The court granted one opportunity for the petitioner to rectify the mistake by appearing before the court and seeking bail.
Final Decision: The petition and application were disposed of, and the court granted one opportunity for the petitioner to appear before the court and seek bail, subject to further cost to be paid to the private respondent.
Mukta Gupta, J.
Crl.M.A.No.9323/2019
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(Crl.) No.1266/2019 & Crl.M.A.No.9322/2019
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 10th April, 2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate which reads as under:-
"CC No.530222/2016
Deepak Jain Vs. Shrey Overseas & Ors.
10.4.2019
Present : Complainant in person.
Accused is absent.
Sh.Ritaj, counsel for the accused.
Counsel for the accused has filed copy of receipt of cost deposited by them in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee in compliance of the order dated 12.03.2019 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a petition filed by them titled as Ritu Jain Vs. State.
Copy of the receipt be taken on record.
Reserve for orders till 2:00 PM.
Sd/
(Arjinder Kaur)
M.M.-01 (N.I.Act)/Central,
THC/Delhi/10.4.2019
At 12:00 noon.
Present: None for the complainant.
Proxy Counsel for the accused.
Proxy Counsel for the accused appears before the Court and files a copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 10.12.2015 made in petition tilted as Ritu Jain Vs. State through standing counsel (CRL.M.C.5004/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.18006/2015).
The counsel submits that vide this order, Single Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi cancelled the NBWs issued against the accused on 30.11.2015 by this Court.
Sd/
(Arjinder Kaur)
M.M.-01 (N.I.Act)/Central,
THC/Delhi/10.4.2019
At 2:00 PM.
Perusal of the records show that the case was filed way back in 2015. Summons were issued to the accused on 19.05.2015 which were received back with remarks 'refusal'. After that B/W were issued against the accused on 13.08.2015. Despite that accused never appeared in the Court. Consequently vide order dated 30.11.2015, NBWs were issued against the accused. The said order was challenged by the accused in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 10.12.2015 in the above named petition ordered as follows:
"After hearing counsel appearing on behalf of both the sides, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that in pursuance of the order dated 30.11.2015, passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner be not arrested in this case till the NDOH fixed before the Court below and after deposit of costs of Rs. 5,000/
Perusal of the records shows that accused never appeared before this Court to furnish bail in compliance of the above said order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Ld.Proxy Counsel for the accused submits that by virtue of this order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the NBWs issued vide order dated 30.11.2015 stood cancelled. However, this Court is unable to reach any such conclusion after reading this order.
In 2016, accused filed another petition (CRL.M.C. 555/2016 & Crl.M.A.2315/2016) in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for quashing the criminal complaint No.1047/2015 i.e. complaint in the present case. The said petition was disposed off by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 12.03.2019, the true copy of which is part of record. Vide said order, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition of the accused and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/-and categorically referred to the petition as "an abuse of the process of law". The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also observed in detail the conduct of the accused throughout the proceedings and observed in para 16 of the order that "the petitioner has been successful in evading the process before the criminal court over the la
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
