Quashed

Vikrant R Sharma v. State( NCT of Delhi)

Delhi HC12 Dec 2024CRL.M.C./2847/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a counsel appearing via VC, challenged an impugned order directing the Bar Council of Delhi to take action due to a 5-minute delay in his physical appearance. The High Court quashed the notice, finding the delay immaterial and justified the petitioner's case.

What did the court decide?

Notice to Bar Council of Delhi under impugned order is set aside. Petition disposed of.

Vikrant R Sharma Vs State( NCT of Delhi) — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~50

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2847/2024 CRL.M.A. 37520/2024

¶4

VIKRANT R SHARMA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Yog Verdhan, Advocate. (thru VC)

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE( NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for State

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 12.12.2024

¶11

This petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 29^th November 2023 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (“ MM ”) (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi.

¶12

The MM was hearing a mater related to FIR No.290/2015 PS Malviya Nagar and on 29^th November 2023, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.

¶13

Petitioner is a practicing lawyer and was engaged by accused Anil Kumar, who was facing trial in FIR No.290/2015. A request was made on behalf of counsel for accused (petitioner herein) that he will reach the Court by 12:30 pm as he was out of station, appearing in District Kupwara, Kashmir, details of which he has given in para 3 of this petition.

¶14

Petitioner reached Delhi airport in the morning at about 10:00 am and sent an email to the concerned Court to passover the matter for 12:30 pm. The matter was called out at 12:35 pm and since the petitioner i.e. counsel

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 08:48:12

¶16

for accused was not available, as he was slightly delayed, the Court deemed it appropriate to send a notice to the Bar Council of Delhi, with direction to take action against the counsel for accused/petitioner.

¶17

The petitioner’s counsel appears through VC and states that he reached the Court at about 12:40 pm and came to know that the Court had already dictated the impugned order. He requested for recording of his appearance in the matter but was told to check the order online. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, this Court had stayed operation of impugned order, by previous order dated 9^th April 2024. 7. APP for the State has no objection to the direction for sending notice to the Bar Council of Delhi, to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, having considered the overall facts and circumstances and having appreciated the contentions made by the petitioner in person, this Court is of the view that there was a delay of about 5 minutes by the petitioner, in reaching the Court, and did not merit issuance of notice to Bar Council, especially when he had appeared later before the Court and explained his situation.

¶18

Accordingly, directions passed by the impugned order sending notice to the Bar Council of Delhi, are hereby set aside. 10. Copy of this order be sent to the Bar Council of Delhi as well, for information and compliance.

¶19

Petition stands disposed of with these directions. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶21

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶22

DECEMBER 12, 2024/sm

¶23

Vikrant R Sharma v. State( NCT of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikrant R Sharma v. State( NCT of Delhi)

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

State of NCT of Delhi Vs Seema

Veer Singh & Ors. Vs State (Govt of NCT Delhi) and Anr.

Ramesh Ahuja Vs State NCT of Delhi

Pushpa Singhal Vs State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors.

Rohit Kumar Vs Rakhi & Anr.

Dave Prakash Pradyuman Proprietor Jas Enterprise & Anr. Vs the State NCT of Delhi through SHO & Anr.