Dismissed

Divik Singh v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2017CRLTP/58/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench heard five connected transfer petitions challenging the refusal to transfer criminal revisions and a trial within the Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur. The court dismissed the petitions, citing the tendered apology and Bar Association assurance regarding alleged misconduct against the presiding officer, and directed disposal within one month.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petitions dismissed; direction to Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur to decide pending criminal revisions within one month of receiving certified copy of the order; trial to proceed ther

Divik Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Transfer Petition No. 59 / 2017

¶3

Siddharth Mehriya S/o Shri Nand Kishore Mehriya, Aged About 25 Years, R/o JM Enterprises, Fatehpur Road, Sikar, Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through PP.

¶7

Manish Agarwal S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Agarwal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o G-20, Heera Bagh, Jaipur, At Present Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu, Raj.

¶8

Yogesh Goyal S/o Shri Vedprakash Goyal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 5/3, Heera Bagh, Jaipur, At Present Additional Police Commissioner, Police Commissioner, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶9

Ramgopal Sharma S/o Shri Harikishan Sharma, At Present Asstt. Police Commissioner, Ashok Nagar, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur., Aged About 53 Years

¶10

Kamal Nayan S/o Not Known, Police Inspector, Incharge, Road Accident, Investigation Unit, Traffic (South), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶11

Balaram S/o Not Known, Police Inspector, Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶12

Kaluram S/o Shri Gokalram Meena, R/o 14, Toda Jaisinghpura, Police Station Tehla, District Alwar, At Present Head Constable (Belt No.528) Malkhana Incharge, Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶13

Sanjay Agarwal S/o Late Shri Surendra Kumar Agarwal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 1/25, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, At Present Police Commissioner, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶14

Praffull Kumar S/o Shri Kedar Nath Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 1/49, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, At Present Addl. Police Commissioner, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

Connected With

¶17

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Transfer Petition No. 58 / 2017 Divik Singh S/o Shri Ravindra Pal Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 6/356, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

(2 of 15)

[CRLTP-59/2017]

Versus

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶23

----Respondent

¶24

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Transfer Petition No. 60 / 2017 Siddharth Mehriya S/o Shri Nand Kishore Mehriya, Aged About 25 Years, R/o JM Enterprises, Fatehpur Road, Sikar (raj.)

¶25

----Petitioner

¶26

Versus

¶27

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶28

----Respondent

¶29

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Transfer Petition No. 61 / 2017 Siddharth Mehriya S/o Shri Nand Kishore Mehriya, Aged About 25 Years, R/o JM Enterprises, Fatehpur Road, Sikar, Raj.

¶30

----Petitioner

¶31

Versus

¶32

State of Rajasthan Through PP.

¶33

Sanjay Agarwal S/o Late Shri Surendra Kumar Agarwal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 1/25, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, At Present Police Commissioner, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶34

Praffull Kumar S/o Shri Kedar Nath Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 1/49, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, At Present Addl. Police Commissioner, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶35

----Respondents

¶36

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Transfer Petition No. 62 / 2017 Siddharth Mehriya S/o Shri Nand Kishore Mehriya, Aged About 25 Years, R/o JM Enterprises, Fatehpur Road, Sikar, Raj.

¶37

----Petitioner

¶38

Versus

¶39

State of Rajasthan Through PP.

¶40

Manish Agarwal S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Agarwal, Aged About 47

¶41

(3 of 15)

¶42

[CRLTP-59/2017]

¶43

Years, R/o G-20, Heera Bagh, Jaipur, At Present Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu, Raj.

¶44

Yogesh Goyal S/o Shri Vedprakash Goyal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 5/3, Heera Bagh, Jaipur, At Present Additional Police Commissioner, Police Commissioner, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶45

Ramgopal Sharma S/o Shri Harikishan Sharma, At Present Asstt. Police Commissioner, Ashok Nagar, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur., Aged About 53 Years

¶46

----Respondents

¶47

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Upman & Mr. Pankaj Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora & Mr. Rajesh Mehrishi

¶48

Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP for State

¶49

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶50

Order

¶51

04/12/2017

¶52

S.B. Criminal Misc. Transfer Petition No.58/2017 has been preferred under Section 407 Cr.P.C. by Divik Singh against the order dated 6.9.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby he refused to transfer Criminal Revision No.99/2016, titled Divik Singh v. State of Rajasthan, from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur to any other court of equivalent jurisdiction.

¶53

S.B. Criminal Misc. Transfer Petition No.59/2017 has been filed to assail the order dated 6.9.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby he refused to transfer Criminal Revision No.862/17, titled Siddharth Mehriya v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur to any other court of similar

(4 of 15)

[CRLTP-59/2017]

jurisdiction.

S.B. Criminal Misc. Transfer Petition No.60/2017 has been instituted to assail the impugned order dated 6.9.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby he refused to transfer Criminal Revision No.20/16, titled State v. Siddharth Mehriya & Ors., from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur to any other court of similar jurisdiction.

¶58

S.B. Criminal Misc. Transfer Petition No.61/2017 has been filed to challenge the order dated 6.9.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby he refused to transfer Criminal Revision No.880/17, titled Sanjay Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur to any other court of similar jurisdiction.

¶59

S.B. Criminal Misc. Transfer Petition No.62/2017 has been preferred to question the validity of the order dated 6.9.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby he refused to transfer Criminal Revision No.897/17, titled Manish Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur to any other court of equivalent jurisdiction.

¶60

As is apparent, in all the petitions common order dated 6.9.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur is under challenge. To understand the controversy raised in these five petitions, it will be necessary to briefly notice the facts

(5 of 15)

[CRLTP-59/2017]

of the case.

It is alleged that on the intervening night of 1^st and 2^nd July, 2016 at 1.15 AM, BMW Car bearing Registration No.RJ23-CB-4444 rammed into a Auto Rikshaw in the vicinity of C-Scheme, Jaipur. The said accident resulted into death of three persons, namely Vishnu @ Bishan Das, Jethanand and Kailash Bairwa and injury to one person who was passenger in the Auto Rikshaw. It is further stated that thereafter above mentioned BMW Car hit the Police Control Room (PCR) Van and injured four police officials. It is further alleged that the car was driven by Shri Siddharth Mehriya and police party used a breath analyzer machine and Shri Siddharth Mehriya was found under the influence of alcohol.

¶65

Shri Pankaj Gupta appearing for Shri Siddharth Mehriya, to counter the above submission, has contended that it was Auto Rikshaw which had hit the BMW Car, allegedly driven by Shri Siddharth Mehriya, and when he was medico-legally examined in the hospital, the Doctor opined that he was not under the influence of liquor. It is further contended that as per report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Siddharth Mehriya was not found under the influence of alcohol.

¶66

Be that as it may, FIR No.234/16, registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (South) was investigated and a chargesheet on 6.8.2016 was submitted against Siddharth Mehriya for offences under Sections 304, 323 IPC and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is further submitted that in the said chargesheet Divik Singh was sent for trial for offence under Section 176 IPC.

¶67

(6 of 15)

¶68

[CRLTP-59/2017]

¶69

Shri Anil Upman, learned counsel appearing for Divik Singh, has submitted that against the order of cognizance, Divik Singh filed Criminal Revision No.99/16. Meanwhile, Siddharth Mehriya filed a complaint against 16 police officials which included, Commissioner of Police, Additional Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur South, Station House Officer, Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur and other police personnels.

¶70

It is submitted by Shri S.S. Hora appearing for police officials that in the criminal complaint No.19/2017, Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, took cognizance against the sixteen police personnel for various offences.

¶71

It is admitted case of the parties that during pedency of proceedings, chargesheet was committed to the Court of Sessions and was entrusted for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. Thus, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur was seized of five criminal revisions and sessions trial which was entrusted to him after committal to the Court of Sessions. Out of said five criminal revision petitions, one was preferred by Divik Singh to challenge order of cognizance qua offence under Section 176 IPC against him. Three revisions were preferred by police officials to assail the order of cognizance dated 21.4.2017 passed in criminal complaint filed by Siddharth Mehriya. One revision was filed by Siddharth Mehriya also to challenge the same order of cognizance dated 21.4.2017 as he was aggrieved because police

¶72

(7 of 15)

¶73

[CRLTP-59/2017]

¶74

officials were not taken to task for all the offences specified in the criminal complaint.

¶75

Now story starts to forestall the proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶76

Shri Anil Upman learned counsel appearing for Divik Singh has submitted that eleven adjournments were granted in the revision filed by Divik Singh by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and when the revisions filed by the police officials were instituted, the said court started acting in haste at the behest of police officials. It is submitted that in the revision preferred by Divik Singh, even though the counsel refused instructions, the court ordered that service is complete and posted the criminal revisions preferred by Divik Singh and police officials for arguments on 16.5.2017. Thus, it is submitted that the Court which was delaying the matter in revision preferred by Divik Singh upon the criminal revisions preferred by police officials, to favour them accelerated disposal of pending revisions.

¶77

Shri S.S. Hora and Shri Rajesh Mehrishi learned counsels appearing for police officials have challenged the above assertion of Shri Anil Upman by saying that all 11 adjournments were sought by the counsel of Divik Singh and thus, delay was caused at the instance of Divik Singh.

¶78

This court cannot determine this question as the orders passed by the Court below on 11 dates in the revision preferred by Divik Singh, are not available on record of this court.

¶79

(8 of 15)

¶80

[CRLTP-59/2017]

¶81

Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for Shri Subhash Mehriya has stated that father of Shri Siddharth Mehriya is a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA). He contested the election as an independent candidate and won and this caused annoyance to the ruling party. It is contended that it is a case of political vendetta as father of Siddharth Mehriya being MLA since is not following the line of the ruling party, therefore, his son has been falsely implicated. It is urged that the report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory demonstrate false implication as same absolved Siddharth Mehriya of the fact that he was under the influence of liquor.

¶82

Shri Pankaj Gupta has further submitted that in fact, the BMW Car was driven by the driver of Siddharth Mehriya and Siddharth Mehriya has been substituted as the accused in place of his driver.

¶83

Shri S.S. Hora has countered the above submission by contending that CC TV footage is part of chargesheet and shows that Siddharth Mehriya was driving the vehicle.

¶84

This argument has nothing to do so far transfer petitions are concerned.

¶85

Shri Pankaj Gupta has drawn my attention to the order dated 9.5.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan. The said order reads as under:-

¶86

“odhy fuxjkuhdkj mi- A xSj fuxjkuh la[;k 1 dh vksj ls yksd vfHk;kstd mi- xSj fuxjkuhdkj la[;k 2 ds uksfVl ij ;g fjiksVZ vk;h fd mlds fuokl LFkku ij xSj fuxjkuhdkj la[;k 2 ekStwn ugh feyk xSj fuxjkuhdkj la[;k 2 ds eksckbZy u- 8107710000 ij lEidZ djus ij xSj

¶87

(9 of 15)

¶88

[CRLTP-59/2017]

¶89

fuxjkuhdkj la[;k 2 }kjk crk;k fd fnYyh fudy x;k gw¡ vius odhy lkuksfVl ds ckjs esa crk nwaxkA xSj fuxjkuhdkj la[;k 2 dks mDr uksfVl dh tkudkjh gksuk Li"V gSA xSj fuxjkuhdkj }kjk uksfVl dh tkudkjh ds miugh vk;kA xSjfuxjkuhdkj la[;k 2 ds vf/koDrk vU; }kjk fuxjkuh lat; vxzoky LVsV is vkt viuh mifLFkfr ntZ djkbZ gS bl izdj.k es viuh mifLFkfr ntZ ugh djkbZ o dgk x;k fd bl izdj.k dh mUgs dksbZ tkudkjh ugh gSA bl U;k;ky; esa yfEcr lS’ku izdj.k es fd fl)kFkZ egfj;k dh vksj vf/koDrk lqfuy of’k"B }kjk gh iSjoh dh tk jgh gSA okLrs cgl LFkxu izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 16-5-17 is’k gks”

¶90

Shri Pankaj Gupta has submitted that there was no necessity for the court below to give credence to the police report that they have contacted respondent No.2 to criminal revision No.897/17, Siddharth Mehriya, on mobile. It is further contended that the court should not have completed the service in haste and therefore, a suspicion was rightly entertained by counsel of Siddharth Mehriya that the court is favouring the police personnel which include the Commissioner of Police, Additional Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police.

¶91

It is urged that due to order dated 9.5.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, an application (Annx.2 to S.B. Cr. Transfer Petition No.59/2017) was submitted to the Registrar (Vigilance) of this court wherein it was specifically stated that one Aas Mohammad, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jhotwara, Jaipur South visited the chamber of Presiding Officer and this fact is discernible from the CC TV footage. In the said complaint (Annx.2) it was further averred that since Aas Mohammad belong to same community of the Presiding Officer, therefore, it is to be assumed that he had come to the chamber of Presiding Officer to seek favour for the police officers.

¶92

(10 of 15)

¶93

[CRLTP-59/2017]

¶94

In the complaint (Annx.2) filed before the Registrar (Vigilance) a grievance was also made in Para-7 that the Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan misbehaved with Shri Govardhan Singh and Sunil Vashishtha lawyers for Siddharth Mehriya and Divik Singh by questioning their competence as the Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan said that “do you know anything about criminal law, or you are civil lawyers”. It is further averred in the complaint (Annx.2) that counsels were pressurized to withdraw the revisions, filed by them.

¶95

Shri S.S. Hora to counter this, has contended that Govardhan Singh is not having any substantial practice and his only claim to fame is to cause nuisance and defame the courts and the concerned Judge. It is further submitted that an application dated 16.5.2017 was filed on behalf of Siddharth Mehriya wherein Additional Sessions Judge No.15 was called upon to recuse from hearing of the matter as an application/complaint has been filed to the Registrar (Vigilance) and to the Chief Justice of this court seeking dismissal of Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan from service.

¶96

Para-3 of the application dated 16.5.2017 reads as under:-

¶97

“3. ;g fd XkSj fuxjkuhdrkZ ls lacf/kr izdj.kksa dh lquokbZ ds nkSjku vki }kjk fof/k fo:) rjhds ls dk;Zokgh djus ,oa fVIif.k;ka djus ds laca/k esa vki Jheku th dks c[kkZLr djkus ds fy;s xSj fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk jftLVªkj foftysal o eq[; U;k;kf/kifr jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dks fyf[kr f'kdk;r Hksth xbZ gSA”

¶98

It is further prayed in the application dated 16.5.2017 that

¶99

(11 of 15)

¶100

[CRLTP-59/2017]

¶101

hearing of the cases be adjourned as complaints have been filed against the Presiding Officer, i.e. Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan. Prayer clause of the application dated 16.5.2017 reads as under:-

¶102

“vr% Hkkjrh; U;k; O;oLFkk ds izfr lEeku iznf'kZr djrs gq, mDr muokuh izdj.k esa lquokbZ ugha djrs gq, vkxkeh rkjh[k is'kh iznku djsa] lkFk gh vkids f[kykQ dh xbZ f'kdk;r dh tk¡p esa lg;ksx djrs gq, Lo;a dh rjQ ls lcaf/kr i=kofy;ka LFkkukUrfjr djus ds fy;s mfpr LFkku ij fy[kus dk d"V djsaA”.

¶103

Shri Pankaj Gupta has submitted that thereafter the revisional court below passed the order dated 16.5.2017 (Annx.5 to S.B. Criminal Misc. Transfer Petition No.59/17) and noted the conduct of Shri Govardhan Singh, counsel appearing for Siddharth Mehriya and observed that same falls within the ambit of contempt of court. It will be apposite here, at this juncture, to reproduce the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by this court, as under:-

¶104

“Attention of the counsel for the petitioner was drawn to Para-3 of the order dated 16.5.2017 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶105

Para-3 of the said order reads as under:-

¶106

3& xSj fuxjkuhdrkZ la[;k nks ds vf/koDrk ds }kjk izkFkZuk i= esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa tksj&tksj ls nksgjkrs gq, ckj&ckj cgl dh o eq> ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds fo:) v’kksHkuh; ve;kZfnr Hkk"kk dk iz;ksx djrs gq, izkFkZuk i= esa mYysf[kr vkjksik s a dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa nksgjk;k ftlls U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d dk;Z esa fo?u iSnk gqbZA xSj fuxjkuhdrkZ la[;k nks fla)kFkZ egfj;ka o mlds vf/koDrk ds }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= esa mYysf[kr rF; Lo;aeso U;k;ky; dh voekuuk ds led{k gS vkSj xSj fuxjkuhdrkZ la[;k nks ds vf/koDrk }kjk U;k;ky; esa izkFkZuk i= esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa dks tksj&tksj ls nksgjkrs gq, U;kf;d dk;Z esa ck/kk mRiUu dhA xSj fuxjkuhdrkZ la[;k nks ds vf/koDrk xksj/ku flag dk mDr vkpj.k U;k;ky; dh voekuuk dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA xSj fuxjkuhdrkZ la[;k nks o mlds vf/koDrk xksj/ku flag ds fo:) U;k;ky; voekuuk ds lEcU/k esa mfpr izØe ij fof/k vuqlkj dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tkosxhA

¶107

(12 of 15)

¶108

[CRLTP-59/2017]

¶109

Shri Anil Upman and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, have tendered unconditional, unqualified apology on behalf of Shri Govardhan Singh, Advocate, and the petitioner. They have jointly submitted that they shall ensure that proceedings are smoothly conducted before the courts below in the present case.

¶110

Shri Rajendra Sharma, President, Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur, has also stated that he shall ensure that the proceedings before the courts below are not hampered in any manner.

¶111

Counsel appearing for the parties have stated that because of conduct of counsel, delay in culmination of the proceedings before the court below shall not be permitted.

¶112

In view of unconditional apology tendered by Shri Anil Upman and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsels for the petitioner, and the assurance given by Shri Rajendra Sharma, President, Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur, list the present petition on 04.12.2017 alongwith S.B. Criminal Misc. Transfer Petition Nos.58/2017, 60/2017, 61/2017 and 62/2017.

¶113

Meanwhile, petitioner on behalf of his counsel Shri Govardhan Singh, may tender unconditional, unqualified apology before the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.”

¶114

In pursuance of order dated 23.11.2017 Shri Pankaj Gupta and Shri Anil Upman have already tendered unconditional unqualified apology on behalf of Shri Govardhan Singh, Advocate. Shri Siddharth Mehriya has also tendered unconditional unqualified apology on behalf of his counsel.

¶115

Since unconditional unqualified apology has been tendered, I accept the same and shall refrain to issue notice to Shri Govardhan Singh as it will unnecessarily delay the proceedings. As a word of advise, it can be only said by this court that members of Bar should not weaken the system by throwing unfounded insinuations at the Presiding Officer.

¶116

A coordinate Bench who was seized of the petitions on

¶117

(13 of 15)

¶118

[CRLTP-59/2017]

¶119

31.10.2017 passed an interim order in favour of the petitioners by directing that the trial court may proceed with the matter, but shall not pass the final order.

¶120

Petitioner Siddharth Mehriya, as per prosecution allegations, in the dead hours of night was driving a BMW Luxury Sedan Car. It is also alleged by the prosecution that he was under the influence of liquor.

¶121

Shri Pankaj Gupta has informed this court that Siddharth Mehriya is son of an MLA. As to what offence has been committed by Siddharth Mehriya, whether he was under the influence of liquor or not, whether he was driving the vehicle or not, all are questions of fact for which evidence is to be adduced by both the prosecution and the defence. Therefore, this court shall refrain to make any comment on these questions. But what is discernible and has anguished this court is that qua the incident which had occurred on the intervening night of 1^st and 2^nd July, 2016, trial has not proceeded. Even the charges have not been formulated. Qua the preliminary issues or questions, trial has been held up on one pretext or the other. Period of 1½ years has already elapsed. Delay defeat justice. Criminal proceedings ought to be swift and prompt so that efforts are not made by anybody to suborn, induce or influence the witnesses. When rich and mighty is an accused, it is often a tactic to delay the trial so that witnesses are prevailed upon.

¶122

In the present case, an attempt was made to browbeat and intimidate the Presiding Officer by leveling false insinuations. The

¶123

(14 of 15)

¶124

[CRLTP-59/2017]

¶125

gist of allegations against Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan is that when the police officials filed a revision, he had affected service upon Siddharth Mehriya without following the due process of law. It may be noted here that petitions filed by Divik Singh and Siddharth Mehriya were pending before the revisional court below and their counsel were also appearing. Their counsels refused to accept the notices by saying that they have no instructions. If the Judge intended to cut short the delay, he cannot be blamed and fingers cannot be raised at him. Second allegation against the Presiding Officer of revisional court is that an Assistant Commissioner of Police met him in the Chamber and he belonged to the community the Judge, therefore, counsel for the petitioners assumed that the police officer came to influence the Presiding Officer qua the matters to which fellow police officials were party. In the present case, all kind of allegations were leveled against the Presiding Officer. Counsel had the audacity to say to the Presiding Officer not to hear the matter as complaint has been filed seeking his dismissal. Uncharitable words were said against the Presiding Officer during the course of proceedings and once the Presiding Officer stood steadfast and said that the allegations fall within the ambit of contempt, a grievance has been made that it will prejudice the petitioners. Those who themselves cross limits of decency cannot seek premium over their conduct.

¶126

Taking totality of circumstances, no ground is made to transfer the pending revisions and the trial from the Court of

¶127

(15 of 15)

¶128

[CRLTP-59/2017]

¶129

Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur to any other court. However, this court has no doubt that the Presiding Officer keeping the past events at bay shall act objectively and shall decide the pending criminal revisions solely on the question of law and facts raised therein. It is time to remind everybody that the courts are only wedded to dispense justice and to arrive at the truth. Merely because an argument has been raised that justice ought not to be done but seems to have been done, proceedings cannot be transferred.

¶130

Thus, the present five transfer petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed by issuing a direction to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur to decide the pending criminal revisions within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. After orders passed in pending criminal revisions attain finality, the trial court shall proceed with the pending matter by giving short adjournments.

¶131

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

¶132

Govind/

Divik Singh v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divik Singh v. State of Rajasthan through P P

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

Shailendra Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Laxman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Naresh Singhal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Siddharth Mehriya Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Siddharth Mehriya Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Siddharth Mehriya Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.