Disposed

Naresh Lal Chaudhary & Ors. v. the Central Bureau of Investigation

Delhi HC10 Mar 2015CRL.M.C./467/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed two petitions challenging the trial court's refusal to reserve a judgment on a protest petition in a CBI case. The court directed the newly appointed Special Judge CBI, who currently lacks jurisdiction over that specific file, to decide the protest petition by May 30, 2015, to avoid delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the current Special Judge CBI to decide the protest petition on or before 30th May, 2015, with liberty to place short synopses on record.

Naresh Lal Chaudhary & Ors. Vs the Central… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2015)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Decision: March 10, 2015

¶3

(i) + CRL.M.C. 467/2015 & Crl.M.A Nos.1864/2015 & 2656/2015

¶4

NARESH LAL CHAUDHARY & ORS ..... Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, Mr. Vipul Sharma and Ms. Meena Sharma, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ... Respondent Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Standing Counsel for CBI with Mr. Rajat Soni, Advocate Mr. Vijay Bisnoi, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. Islam Khan, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 6

¶8

(ii)+ CRL.M.C. 468/2015 & Crl.M.A.Nos.1866/2015 & 2658/2015

¶9

MEENA CHAUDHARY SHARMA ..... Petitioner

¶10

Through: In person

¶11

versus

¶12

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ... Respondent Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Standing Counsel for CBI with Mr. Rajat Soni, Advocate

¶13

Mr. Vijay Bisnoi, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. Islam Khan, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 6

¶14

Crl.M.C.No.467/2015 Crl.M.C.No.468/2015

¶15

Page 1

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

% (ORAL)

¶19

In the above captioned two petitions, challenge is to the order of 23^rd January, 2015 vide which trial court has refused to reserve the orders on the protest petition and has adjourned the hearing on the protest petition to 27^th February, 2015.

¶20

With the consent of counsel representing both the sides, the above captioned two petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶21

The grievance of petitioners is that the Presiding Officer of the trial court had heard the protest petition for last more than three years and hearing on the protest petition was actually concluded on 7^th January, 2015 and the matter was adjourned to the next day for further hearing and clarification and on the next day, counsel for accused wanted to make some legal submissions and the matter was adjourned to 19^th January, 2015 and on the said day also, the matter was got adjourned to 23^rd January, 2015 and the Presiding Officer of the trial court had to relinquish the charge as Special Judge, CBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi on 24^th January, 2015 upon being transferred to the Electricity Court. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that counsel for respondent-accused had deliberately not appeared on 23^rd January, 2015 and in such a situation, the trial court ought to have reserved the orders on the protest petition, instead of adjourning it on the request of proxy counsel for accused.

¶22

The precise prayer made on behalf of petitioners is that the protest

¶23

Crl.M.C.No.467/2015 Crl.M.C.No.468/2015

¶24

Page 2

¶25

petition be placed before the Presiding Officer, who has already heard the matter for more than three years, so that the unnecessary delay can be curtailed.

¶26

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondentaccused had submitted that upon transfer of the Presiding Officer of the trial court, he no longer remains the Special Judge, CBI and unless powers of Special Judge, CBI are especially conferred by the Government upon the judicial officer, he cannot deal with protest petition in this CBI case.

¶27

After having heard both the sides and on perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, I find that the protest petition cannot be entrusted to the same judicial officer who had dealt with it earlier because he is not having the powers of Special Judge, CBI which are conferred by special Notification by the Government. It is indeed unfortunate that the hearing on the protest petition had spanned over a period of three years. To allay the apprehension of inordinate delay again, it is directed that the present Special Judge, CBI shall provide a time bound hearing on the protest petition with liberty to the parties to place on record their short synopsis. Let all the endeavours be made by the trial court to decide the protest petition on or before 30^th May, 2015.

¶28

With aforesaid directions, the above captioned two petitions and applications are disposed of.

¶29

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶30

MARCH 10, 2015 r

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.467/2015 Crl.M.C.No.468/2015

¶32

Page 3

Naresh Lal Chaudhary & Ors. v. the Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Lal Chaudhary & Ors. v. the Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Jain Vs Jitender Kumar Gupta

Vijay Bali Vs State & Ors.

Navin Soni Vs State & Anr.

Jagatvir Singh Vs the State & Anr.

Meena Chaudhary Sharma Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation

Naveen Chander Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.