The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging an order that held an earlier paragraph was a consent order recorded by the court with parties' agreement, negating the claim that it was an improper stay of criminal proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~65
INDIA-CIS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY ..... Appellant Through : Mr Rakesh Tiku, Sr Advocate with Mr R. K. Saini and Mr Sandeep Kumar
versus
DR JYOTSNA CHAUDHRI & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Ms Neelam Rathore with Ms Puja Jain
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
O R D E R
% CAV 54/2016
19.01.2016
The learned counsel for the respondent/ caveator is present.
The caveat stands discharged.
CM 1995/2016
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
FAO(OS) 18/2016 & CM 1994/2016
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.11.2015 in IA Nos. 24244/2015 and 24245/2015.
The main grievance of the appellant is with regard to the interpretation to be placed on the earlier order dated 04.08.2015. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that paragraph 1 of the said order dated 04.08.2015 was not a consent order, but was a direction given by the Court, which could not have been given since, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, a Civil Court cannot stay criminal proceedings.
We have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent/ caveator. On going through the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Single Judge himself has indicated that the entire order was a consent order, which included paragraph 1 of the order dated 04.08.2015. When the learned Single Judge, who passed the order dated 04.08.2015, himself states in the impugned order that paragraph 1 was also by the consent of the parties, no dispute can be raised on that issue.
We also do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the contents of paragraph 1 of the order dated 04.08.2015 amounts to the Civil Court staying the criminal proceedings. There is no stay granted by the learned Single Judge. It has only recorded the consent on the part of the appellant not to pursue the complaint dated 12.06.2015 till the new governing body of the society – India-CIS Chamber of Commerce and Industry – comes into place after an election. It was agreed to by the parties that after the new governing body comes into place, it would take a call whether to continue the criminal complaint or not.
Therefore, on both counts, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is untenable. There is no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
JANUARY 19, 2016 SR
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the preliminary paragraph of an earlier order constituted a consent order or a court direction staying criminal proceedings.
Whether the appellant had any locus to pursue a complaint before the new governing body of the society was elected.
India-CIS Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Dr Jyotsna Chaudhri & Ors
Badar Durrez Ahmed
Sanjeev Sachdeva
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
