CRL.REV.P. 685/2017 & CRL.M.A. 15058/2017 Page 1 of 18

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Order: 27^th October, 2017

+

CRL.REV.P. 685/2017 & CRL.M.A. 15058/2017

1. DEEPAK BAJPAI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Prashant Mehdiratta, Adv. with

Mr.Harshwardan, Mr.Mohd. Irsad and

Ms.Aanchal, Advs.

versus

1. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

2.

ARUN JAITLEY

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms.Richa Kapoor, ASC for State

Mr.Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with

Mr.Manik Dogra, Mr.Anupam

Prasad and Mr.Manoj Taneja, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

ORDER

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1.

Instant application, i.e. CRL.M.A. 15058/2017, under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act

for condonation of delay of 458 days in filing the present

revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Deepak Bajpai.

CRL.REV.P. 685/2017 & CRL.M.A. 15058/2017 Page 2 of 18

2.

Brief

facts

as

stated

are

that

the

respondent

No.2/complainant, i.e. Arun Jaitley, had filed a complaint under

Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the accused persons, i.e. Arvind

Kejriwal, Ashutosh, Sanjay Singh, Kumar Vishwas, Raghav

Chadha and Deepak Bajpai (petitioner herein), alleging therein

that the said persons had committed offences under Sections

499/500/501/502 IPC read with Sections 34/35 IPC.

3.

Thereafter, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

after closing the pre-summoning evidence and hearing the

submissions of the learned counsels for the parties vide order

dated 09.03.2016 summoned all the accused persons (including

the present petitioner) for the offence under Section 500 IPC

read with Section 34 IPC.

4.

Subsequently, on 24.10.2016 the said accused persons

(including the petitioner) moved joint application seeking

permission to address arguments at the stage of framing of

notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

5.

Vide order dated 30.01.2017 the learned Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the aforesaid application

filed by the accused persons with the view that the application is

bereft of any merit, mala fide and filed solely with a view to

stall the trial.

6.

Consequently, vide order dated 25.03.2017 the learned

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate framed notice under Section 251

Cr.P.C. against all the accused persons (including the petitioner)

for the offence under Sections 500/34 IPC.

CRL.REV.P. 685/2017 & CRL.M.A. 15058/2017 Page 3 of 18

7.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 24.10.2016,

30.01.2017 and 25.03.2017 passed by the learned Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in

C.C. No. 210/01/15 the petitioner has preferred the present

revision petition along with instant application for condonation

of delay of 458 days in filing the present revision petition.

8.

By this order I shall dispose of the application for

condonation of delay of 458 days filed on behalf of the

petitioner.

9.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

refusal to condone the delay will result in throwing out a

meritorious case in the threshold. The orders which have been

challenged are patently void and illegal and the delay should be

condoned so that substantial justice can be done and the

meritorious matter is not thrown out on technical grounds. He

has further submitted that pure question of law are involved in

this matter and substantial justice deserves that the petitioner be

heard despite there being a delay of 458 days.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has further

submitted that the petitioner has an excellent arguable case on

merits.

10.

He has further submitted that the delay has not

occasioned deliberately. He has further submitted that the

petitioner being a public figure was involved in different duties

of elections a