O R D E R

% 17.09.2024

1. This petition has been filed for setting aside order dated 06th September, 2024 where the Sessions Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner against order of the CJM dated 08th April, 2024 where the petitioner was declared as absconder by the CJM.

2. The revision petition by the ASJ was dismissed recording the fact that pursuant to efforts which have been made by the IO in this matter and first serving the petitioner in Mumbai and then in Gurugram, where they they admit are residing, they have not joined the investigation. The Court has perused the assessment which has been made by the Revisionist Court.

3. Today, counsel for the petitioner has raised a contention stating that the communication address is still I-062, Indiabulls Enigma Apartments, Sector 110, Gurugram, Haryana-122017 but they are living in another place.

4. Needless to state this is the reason when the IO visited this Gurugram address in August and September 2024, found the place locked. On inquiry from the landlord, it was already noted that the they had already vacated the said premises.

5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, states that they are still using the same communication address but are residing in another premises.

6. However, having attempted to serve at all known address, one in Mumbai and two in Gurugram (including the one noted in para 3 above), the petitioner has still not joined the investigation.

7. It is also noted that by a prior order dated 22nd August, 2024 this Court had permitted the petitioner to withdraw the application for anticipatory bail and file a petition for challenging the order, of the CJM dated 08th April, 2024 where the petitioner was declared as absconder by the CJM. It is the revision against this order which has now been dismissed, by the impugned order.

8. It was noted by the Trial Court while dismissing the anticipatory bail application on 12th August 2024, that the petitioner is accused of forgery of documents, cheating and misappropriation of huge sums of money. It was noted that as per the allegations, the petitioner managed to cheat the complainant by misusing factoring agreement, relying upon forged and fabricated invoices raised against third parties purportedly for providing logistics services, while the said parties denied having availed any such services from the petitioner. It is also noted that petitioner was in judicial custody for almost three years in another case.

9. This Court has heard the parties and perused the order and does not find any infirmity with the same.

10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2024/MK