Allowed

Arjun Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Delhi HC1 Oct 2019CRL.M.C./5044/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order dismissing a petition for recording a further statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, directing the Trial Court to put two specific questions to the petitioner subject to a stringent condition prohibiting adjournments on the next date of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissing application for section 313 Cr.PC statement set aside; Trial Court directed to put specific questions on 04.10.2019 without adjournment; prayer for return of costs rejected.

Arjun Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~55

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 5044/2019 ARJUN SINGH ..... Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Yogesh Verma & Mr. Bhartosh Sharma, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, SPP with Mr. Prakash Airan, Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 01.10.2019

¶11

CRL.M.A.37465/2019 (for exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

¶13

CRL.M.C.5044/2019 & CRL.M.A.37464/2019

¶14

Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned SPP.

¶15

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) for quashing the impugned order dated 20.8.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act), CBI, whereby the application of the petitioner for recording his statement under Section 313 of the Cr. PC afresh has been dismissed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the cross-examination of three witnesses by the defence, some

¶17

fresh material has come on the record, regarding which the petitioner intends to explain and/or clarify in his further statement under Section 313 of the Cr. PC recorded earlier by the Trial Court and submitted that the Trial Court may be directed to ask the following questions from him:

¶18

(i) Do you want to say anything else.

¶19

(ii) Do you want to lead defence evidence.

¶20

Learned SPP submitted that the petitioner is habitual of filing frivolous petitions before this Court and is delaying the matter, however, in the interest of justice and just to cut short the delay, the petitioner may be given one opportunity to get his further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. PC and the Trial Court may be directed to ask the aforesaid two questions from him.

¶21

Accordingly, the order dated 20.8.2019 is set aside and the Trial Court is directed, in the interest of justice, to put up further again the two questions, i.e., (i) Do you want to say anything else and (ii) Do you want to lead defence evidence, subject to the condition that no adjournment, on any ground whatsoever, shall be granted by the Trial Court to the petitioner on the next date of hearing, i.e., 4.10.2019 for the aforesaid purpose.

¶22

However, so far as question of returning the costs of Rs.5,000/- is concerned, I do not find any flaw or infirmity in the order dated 20.8.2019. Accordingly, the prayer for the

¶23

return of costs of Rs.5,000/- is rejected.

¶24

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application is also disposed of.

¶25

Dasti.

¶26

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J

¶27

OCTOBER 01, 2019 tp

Arjun Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Singh v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Kumar & Ors. Vs the State & Anr.

Hemant @ Happy Vs State

Abhishek Verma Vs State & Anr.

Shri Y.S. Tomar Vs State & Anr.

Prem Narain Sharma Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Mahesh Vs the State NCT of Delhi