IN THE MATTER OF :-
Petitioners' names: PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
Ct. Cases No. Complaint case number
U/s.: Section of offence
P.S.: Police station.
INDEX
| 5. | CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, ALONG WITH AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT | |
| 6. | ANNEXURE P-1; TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING CT. CASES NO. Complaint case number, P.S. Police station, DELHI | |
| 8. | ANNEXURE P-2 (COLLY); TRUE COPIES OF NOTIFICATIONS DATED Date of first notification AND Date of second notification | |
| 9. | ANNEXURE P-3; TRUE COPY OF CONSENT ORDER DATED Date of consent order | |
| 10. | ANNEXURE P-4 (COLLY); TRUE COPIES OF BILL, FORMS First form number AND Second form number OF FORM XVII, ALONG WITH THE FORWARDING LETTER OF THE CODING OFFICER, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, DATED Date of forwarding letter | |
| 11. | ANNEXURE P-5 (COLLY); TRUE COPIES OF MEMORANDA DATED Date of first memorandum AND Date of second memorandum | |
| 12. | ANNEXURE P-6; TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED Date of Petitioner No. 2's first reply OF PETITIONER NO. 2 | |
| 13. | ANNEXURE P-7; TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED Date of Petitioner No. 1's first reply OF PETITIONER NO. 1 | |
| 14. | ANNEXURE P-8; TRUE COPY OF RE-TESTING NOTICE DATED Date of re-testing notice | |
| 15. | ANNEXURE P-9; TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED Date of Petitioner No. 1's reply to re-testing notice OF PETITIONER NO. 1 | |
| 16. | ANNEXURE P-10; TRUE COPY OF FORM NO. Form number for re-testing DATED Date of Form for re-testing FOR RE-TESTING | |
| 17. | ANNEXURE P-11; TRUE COPY OF FORM XVII ALONG WITH REPORT BEARING NO. Report number of Form XVII DATED Date of Form XVII report | |
| 18. | ANNEXURE P-12; TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED Date of show cause notice | |
| 19. | ANNEXURE P-13; TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED Date of Petitioner No. 2's reply to show cause notice OF PETITIONER NO. 2 | |
| 20. | ANNEXURE P-14; TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED Date of Respondent No. 2's letter OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 | |
| 21. | ANNEXURE P-15; TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED Date of Petitioner No. 2's reply furnishing Petitioner No. 1's name OF PETITIONER NO. 2, WHEREIN THE NAME OF PETITIONER NO. 1 WAS FURNISHED AS THE TECHNICAL OFFICER | |
| 22. | ANNEXURE P-16 (COLLY); TRUE COPIES OF ORDER SHEETS OF THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT | |
| 23. | APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 SEEKING STAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS, WITH AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT | |
| 24. | APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 205 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 SEEKING PERMANENT EXEMPTION FOR PETITIONER NO. 1, WITH AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT | |
| 25. | APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPIES, WITH AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT | |
PETITIONERS
Through
Place: Place of filing
Dated: Date of filing
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. WRIT PETITION No. Writ petition number OF Year of writ petition.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Petitioner 1's name
& ANR.: PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
Ct. Cases No. Complaint case number
U/s.: Section of offence
P.S.: Police station.
URGENT APPLICATION
To,
The Hon'ble Joint Registrar,
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi.
Sir,
It is most respectfully requested that the accompanying writ petition/application may kindly be treated as urgent, in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi High Court Rules and Regulations and the orders issued thereunder.
The grounds of urgency are as set out in the accompanying petition/application. It is most respectfully prayed that the accompanying petition for quashing of the proceedings pending before the Learned Trial Court at the Trial court complex Courts, Delhi, in Ct. Cases No. Complaint case number, titled as "Complaint case title", Police Station Police station, Delhi, instituted under Section 19(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, may kindly be treated as urgent.
PETITIONERS
Through
Place: Place of filing
Dated: Date of filing
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. WRIT PETITION No. Writ petition number OF Year of writ petition.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Petitioner 1's name
& ANR.: PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
Ct. Cases No. Complaint case number
U/s.: Section of offence
P.S.: Police station.
MEMO OF PARTIES
1. Sh. Petitioner 1's name
S/o Sh. Petitioner 1's father's name
R/o Petitioner 1's address,
Petitioner 1's address line
2. Petitioner 2's company name
Through its Authorised Person/Director,
Authorised person's name,
Company address,
Company address line: PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Respondent 1's name
2. Respondent 1's name continuation
ADDRESS: RESPONDENTS
FILED BY
Place: Place of filing
Dated: Date of filing
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. WRIT PETITION No. Writ petition number OF Year of writ petition.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
1. Sh. Petitioner 1's name
S/o Petitioner 1's father's name,
R/o Petitioner 1's address,
Petitioner 1's address line.
2. Petitioner 2's company name
Through its Authorised Person/Director,
Authorised person's name,
Company address,
Company address line: PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Respondent 1's name
2. Respondent 1's name continuation
ADDRESS: RESPONDENTS
Ct. Cases No. Complaint case number
U/s.: Section of offence
P.S.: Police station.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, FOR QUASHING OF THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT OF MS. Metropolitan magistrate's name, LEARNED M.M.-03, Trial court complex, DELHI, IN A COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 200 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, BEARING CT. CASES NO. Complaint case number, TITLED AS "Complaint case title", POLICE STATION Police station, INSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 19(1)(a) OF THE INSECTICIDES ACT, 1968.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-
1.That the Petitioners are law-abiding citizens of India and have full faith in the administration of justice. That the Petitioners have sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing of the proceedings pending before the Learned Trial Court of Ms. Metropolitan magistrate's name, Learned M.M.-03, Delhi, in Ct. Cases No. Complaint case number, titled as Complaint case title, Police Station Police station, Delhi, instituted under Section 19(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, on the basis of a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioners.
A copy of the complaint bearing No. Complaint case number is annexed to this petition as Annexure P-1.
2.That the Petitioners are aggrieved by the complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by Respondent No. 2 before the Learned Trial Court against the Petitioners. By this petition, the Petitioners are, inter alia, seeking the quashing of the said impugned complaint and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
3.That the present petition has been filed by the Petitioners, and the brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the present petition are summed up as under:-
3.1The complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was filed by Respondent No. 2 before the Learned Trial Court, alleging therein that Petitioner No. 1 is the Technical Officer of Petitioner No. 2, and that Petitioner No. 2 is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the manufacture of the sample in question, i.e., Name of insecticide sample.
3.2It is further alleged that the company of the dealer, namely Dealer's name, was found selling misbranded Name of insecticide sample insecticide/pesticide, bearing Batch No. Batch number of sample, which was manufactured by Petitioner No. 2. It is alleged that on Date of inspection, Respondent No. 2 visited the sales counter of Dealer's shop name situated at Dealer's shop address for inspection of the insecticides. The Officer of Respondent No. 2 purchased a sample of Name of insecticide sample bearing Batch No. Batch number of sample, manufactured on Date of manufacture of sample and expiring on Date of expiry of sample, vide Bill No. Bill number dated Date of purchase of sample, which was allegedly manufactured by Petitioner No. 2. The complainant retained the bill for the same and Form No. Form number, in which the details of the sample were recorded, the containers were sealed, and the said sample of insecticide was sent to the Joint Director (Chemistry), Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Faridabad, Haryana, as alleged.
3.3It is further alleged that the complainant / respondent no. 2 received a report from the office of the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, NH-IV, Faridabad, together with the report of the Regional Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Kanpur dated Date of laboratory report, which read as follows: "the sample does not conform to the relevant IS: Specification in the active ingredient test requirement and hence found misbranded". It is further alleged that the percentage of Profenofos was found to be Profenofos percentage found in the first report and that of Cypermethrin was found to be Cypermethrin percentage found in the first report.
3.4The petitioners were thereafter called upon to furnish their justification / reply. The petitioners requested that the sample be sent for retesting / re-analysis. Accordingly, the said sample was sent again for retesting / re-analysis, and the CIL Laboratory, NH-IV, Faridabad reported that the sample contained Profenofos Profenofos percentage found in the second (CIL) report and Cypermethrin Cypermethrin percentage found in the second (CIL) report.
3.5That the Ld. Trial Court framed notice under Section 251 CrPC against the petitioners for offences under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The petitioners did not plead guilty.
4.Aggrieved by the complaint filed against them, the petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court seeking quashing of the complaint on the following grounds, amongst others:-
- : G R O U N D S : -
A.Because the definition of "misbranded" under Section 3(k)(vii) does not apply to the facts of the present case, and hence the charge framed under Section 29(1)(a) against the petitioners is not made out. The relevant provisions of the Insecticides Act, for proper appreciation of the facts in light of the law, are reproduced hereunder:-
As per the Insecticides Act, 1968, "misbranded" means – "an insecticide shall be deemed to be misbranded if its label contains any statement, design or graphic representation relating thereto which is false or misleading in any material particular, or if its package is otherwise deceptive in respect of its contents."
Section 29 of the said Act deals with offences and punishments. Clause 1(a) of the said section provides that whoever imports, manufactures, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale, or distributes, any insecticide deemed to be misbranded under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (viii) of clause (k) of Section 3 shall be liable to the punishment prescribed therein.
Hence, the present complaint is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.
B.Because there is a substantial variation in the percentage of active ingredients between the first report and the second report, which itself falsifies the claim of the complainant / respondent no. 2 that the sample is misbranded. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.
C.Because the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the law and the facts correctly, and the framing of the charge under Section 29(1)(a) is clearly illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and unjust.
D.Because the petitioners rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar Vs. Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur, 1992(1) CCR 763, and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in M/s. Agriculture Traders & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., CRM-M No. 2122 of 2013.
E.Because the analysis report of the Central Insecticide Laboratory (CIL) dated Date of the Central Insecticide Laboratory (CIL) analysis report shows a vast variation between the analysis report dated Date of RPTL Kanpur report of the Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory (RPTL), Kanpur and the present CIL report, which is technically not possible.
F.Because both samples of the same product of the same batch were analysed within a short span of approximately Approximate time gap between the two analyses by two different laboratories. In the analysis report of RPTL dated Date of RPTL Kanpur report, the active ingredients of Profenofos were found to be Profenofos percentage found in the first report and Cypermethrin Cypermethrin percentage found in the first report. However, in the CIL analysis report dated Date of the Central Insecticide Laboratory (CIL) analysis report, which was carried out later, Profenofos was found to be Profenofos percentage found in the second (CIL) report and Cypermethrin Cypermethrin percentage found in the second (CIL) report. On comparison of the two analysis reports of RPTL and CIL, the content of Profenofos is shown to have gone up by Increase in Profenofos percentage between the two reports and that of Cypermethrin to have come down by Decrease in Cypermethrin percentage between the two reports; such a wide variation is scientifically impossible. This clearly establishes that there was some error in the analysis of the sample carried out by RPTL and CIL. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be quashed on this score.
G.Because the samples may have been affected by various factors, including human oversight or improper storage during transit, improper methods of analysis, improper readings, defective equipment, or the absence of proper technical standards for analysis.
H.For that, it is a settled principle of law that, even otherwise, no material evidence has been filed against the petitioners which would constitute an offence, and therefore the said complaint is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.
I.Because the petitioners have been facing trial for approximately Approximate number of years the petitioners have faced trial years, which far exceeds the actual punishment prescribed under the law, without any fault on their part.
J.That the petitioners, who are facing trial in the aforesaid false and fabricated case for almost Approximate number of years the petitioners have faced trial years, are yet to lead their evidence.
K.Because the petitioners are aggrieved by the prolonged trial and the delaying tactics adopted by the complainant to defer the trial. The manner and pace at which the present proceedings are progressing is lethal to a 'fair trial', whatever the ultimate decision may be. Speedy justice is a component of social justice, as an innocent person ought to be absolved from the inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings.
L.Because speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, and any accused who is denied this right of speedy trial is entitled to move an appropriate application for the purpose of enforcing such right, and this Hon'ble Court, in discharge of its constitutional obligation, has the power to give necessary directions for securing this right to the accused.
M.For that, the present FIR being ex facie mala fide falls squarely within the scope of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 (para 107), and the petitioners are entitled to have the proceedings quashed on that ground as well.
N.Because in the present case, even if the allegations made by the complainant are taken to be true, no offence under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act is made out, and in any event there is no such allegation in the complaint. It is pertinent to mention that even if the contentions of the complainant are believed to be true, the present case does not fall within that purview.
O.Because it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, in paragraph 57, that the position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation, but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power, viz. (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In which cases the power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or the victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act, or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc., cannot provide any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But criminal cases having an overwhelmingly and predominantly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions, or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc., or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if, in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and the continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice, and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite a full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding, or whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of the process of law despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer, and whether, to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end; and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
P.In R.Klayani Vs. Janak C. Mehta & Ors, 2009 (1) SCC 516, wherein in paras 15 and 16 it was held as under:
"15. The propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are:
(1)The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report, unless the allegations contained therein, even if given their full face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclose no cognizable offence.
(2)For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.
(3)Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose the commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused by holding that there is an absence of any mens rea or actus reus.
(4)If the allegations disclose a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.
It is furthermore well known that no hard and fast rule can be laid down, and each case has to be considered on its own merits. The Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, although would not interfere with a genuine complaint, keeping in view the purport and object for which Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were introduced by the Parliament, would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. One of the paramount duties of the superior courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to persecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint."
Q.That, with regard to the power and jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent decision in Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2013 (2) AD (S.C.) 89, decided on 23.01.2013, in a similar and identical case, observed inter alia as under:-
"19. The proposition of law pertaining to the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. Criminal appeal number of cited case of 2013, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4883 of 2008, decided on 23.1.2013), wherein this Court inter alia held as under:
22.The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences, inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such as would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable and indubitable facts; that the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and that the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this, the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice."
R.That the present proceedings have been launched as an engine of oppression, with the sole purpose of preventing the complainant from pursuing the complaint and of terrorising the petitioners by subjecting them to a motivated and false criminal prosecution.
S.That, on the strength of the allegations, it is clear that no offence is made out against the petitioners, and as such, the complaint is liable to be quashed.
5.That the criminal proceeding is manifestly intended with mala fides and has been instituted with an ulterior motive, for wreaking vengeance upon the petitioners and with a view to spite them on account of a private and personal grudge.
6.That the petitioners crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to raise such other and further grounds as may be available to them at the time of hearing of the present petition.
7.That the petitioners crave leave to alter or amend the petition with the permission of this Hon'ble Court, and by way of the present petition, the petitioners humbly seek the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to pass appropriate orders for quashing of the FIR.
8.That the petitioners have not filed any similar petition in the above-noted matter, either before this Hon'ble Court or before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
P R A Y E R
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
(a)pass an appropriate order/direction quashing the proceedings pending before the Ld. Trial Court at Trial court complex Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No. Complaint case number, titled "Complaint case title", Police Station Police station, instituted under Section of offence of the Insecticides Act, 1968, along with all other proceedings emanating therefrom;
(b)pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed accordingly.
PETITIONERS
Through
Place: New Delhi
Dated:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. M.C. NO. Criminal miscellaneous number OF 2024.
IN
CRL. WRIT PETITION No. Writ petition number OF 2024.
IN THE MATTER OF :
Petitioner 1's name & ANR.: PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
Complaint Case No. Complaint case number
Under Sections: Section of offence
P.S.: Police station
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE Proceedings requiring certified copies
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.That the petitioners have filed annexures along with the main petition in support of the writ petition, and the annexures so filed are true, correct and compared copies of the originals.
2.That the petitioners shall apply for obtaining certified copies of the annexures and undertake to file the same as soon as they are made available by the copying agency concerned.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to exempt the petitioners from filing the certified copies of the Annexures.
Any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in the interest of justice.
PETITIONERS
Through
Place: Place of filing
Dated: Date of filing
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. WRIT PETITION No.Writ petition number OF 2024.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Petitioner 1's name
& ANR.: PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Sh. Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Sh. Deponent's father's name, R/o Deponent's address, presently at New Delhi, who hereby solemnly affirms and declares as under :-
1.That I am the petitioner no.1 in the above-mentioned application and am therefore competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the above-mentioned Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking issuance of a necessary writ or direction in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or otherwise, has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions, and the legal submissions made therein are based on legal advice received and are believed to be true.
3.That the annexures annexed to the accompanying writ petition are true copies of their respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Delhi on this Date of verification day of July, 2024, that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. WRIT PETITION No.Writ petition number OF 2024.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Petitioner 1's name
& ANR.: PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Mr. Director's name, Director of Company name, aged about Director's age years, having office at Company office address, New Delhi-110001, who hereby solemnly affirms and declares as under :-
1.That I am the petitioner no.2 in the above-mentioned application and am therefore competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the above-mentioned Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking issuance of a necessary writ or direction in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or otherwise, has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions, and the legal submissions made therein are based on legal advice received and are believed to be true.
3.That the annexures annexed to the accompanying writ petition are true copies of their respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Delhi on this Date of verification day of July, 2024, that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. M.C. NO. Criminal miscellaneous number OF 2024.
IN
CRL. WRIT PETITION No.Writ petition number OF 2024.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Petitioner 1's name
& ANR.: PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Sh. Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Sh. Deponent's father's name, R/o Deponent's address, presently at New Delhi, who hereby solemnly affirms and declares as under :-
1.That I am the petitioner no.1 in the above-mentioned application and am therefore competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the submissions as to facts made in the accompanying application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking exemption from filing certified copies are based on legal advice received and are believed to be true.
3.That the annexures annexed to the accompanying application are true copies of their respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Delhi on this Date of verification day of July, 2024, that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. M.C. NO. Criminal miscellaneous number OF 2024.
IN
CRL. WRIT PETITION No.Writ petition number OF 2024.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Petitioner 1's name
& ANR.: PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
Complaint Case No. Complaint case number
Under Section(s): Section of offence
P.S.: Police station
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER NO.1 / APPLICANT, NAMELY Petitioner 1's name, UNDER SECTION 205 OF THE CrPC FOR PERMANENT EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-
1.That petitioner no.1 has filed the accompanying Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which is pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Court. The contents of the said writ petition are true to the knowledge of the petitioner, and the same may kindly be read as an integral part of this application, as its contents are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
2.That the applicant prefers this application for issuance of an appropriate order dispensing with the personal appearance of the applicant in the impugned complaint.
3.That the applicant is aged about Applicant's age years and is a permanent resident of Applicant's place of residence. The wife of the applicant is under treatment for Applicant's wife's medical condition, and it is not practically possible for the applicant to leave his ailing wife and travel to Delhi on each and every date of hearing, as owing to her condition she may require the applicant's presence at any time. The applicant has also been facing trial for approximately Approximate number of years the petitioners have faced trial without any fault on his part.
4.That the applicant / petitioner no.1 is a permanent resident of Applicant's place of residence and is required to travel therefrom to attend the court hearings. The applicant is employed as Applicant's designation in petitioner no.2 company and is not personally responsible for, nor a direct accused in, the alleged offence. The said company also has a regional office at Delhi, and the authorised representative of the said Delhi regional office shall represent the company's case. It is therefore not practically possible for the applicant to appear before the Ld. Trial Court at Delhi on each and every date of hearing, for the reasons stated above.
5.That the applicant has been facing trial in the aforesaid case for approximately Approximate number of years the petitioners have faced trial, and the prosecution evidence is yet to commence. A perusal of the order sheet would reveal that the applicant / petitioner no.1 has attended each and every hearing of the aforesaid case, whereas the complainant has not been similarly regular.
6.That aggrieved by the prolonged trial and the delaying tactics adopted by the complainant, the applicant is moving the present application seeking exemption from personal appearance, on the ground that he is a permanent resident of Applicant's place of residence and is required to travel therefrom to attend the court hearings, and that the applicant and his wife are in ill health and suffer from various ailments.
7.That it is submitted that the requirement of personal appearance of the applicant / accused in a criminal case is designed for the benefit of the applicant, its underlying objective being to enable the applicant to be aware of the charges and the evidence adduced against him. It is well settled in law that this beneficial stipulation must yield when insistence upon it becomes counterproductive, oppressive and financially burdensome for the applicant.
8.That it is equally a well-settled position in law that where an accused is a resident of another place and suffers from various ailments owing to circumstances beyond his control, the benefit under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be granted as a matter of course.
9.That the applicant categorically states that he does not dispute his identity as an accused and undertakes to remain present through his authorised advocate in the proceedings in the impugned complaint case. The applicant further undertakes not to dispute or call into question the validity of any proceeding in the instant case held in the presence of the authorised advocate. The applicant further undertakes to remain present as and when required by this Hon'ble Court.
10.That it is stated that the relief sought in this application, apart from subserving the ends of justice, shall not in any manner delay or obstruct the due proceedings in the instant case. As such, in the ends of justice, this application, which is preferred bona fide, may kindly be allowed and the requirement of the personal presence of the applicant may kindly be dispensed with.
11.That the manner and pace at which the present proceedings are going on is lethal to a 'fair trial', whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a component of social justice, as it absolves the innocent from the inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings.
12.That, as stated hereinabove, a speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, and any accused who is denied the right to a speedy trial is entitled to move an appropriate application for the purpose of enforcing such right, and this Court, in discharge of its constitutional obligation, has the power to give necessary directions for securing this right to the accused.
13.It is also submitted that, looking at the age and illness of the applicant, the matter may be heard expeditiously, as prayed for in a separate application filed by the applicant.
14.That the present application has been made bona fide and no prejudice shall be caused to the prosecution if the present application is allowed by this Hon'ble Court.
PRAYER:-
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and pass necessary orders dispensing with the requirement of personal presence / appearance of the applicant in the proceedings in the instant case, in view of the facts and circumstances as submitted above.
And / or
Pass any such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
APPLICANT/PETITIONER NO.1
Through
Place: New Delhi
Dated:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. M.C. NO. Criminal miscellaneous number OF 2024.
IN
CRL. WRIT PETITION No.Writ petition number OF 2024.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Petitioner 1's name
& ANR.: PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Sh. Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Sh. Deponent's father's name, R/o Deponent's address, presently at New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
1.That I am the Petitioner No. 1 in the above-mentioned application and am, therefore, competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the accompanying application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions, while the legal submissions made therein are based on legal advice received and believed to be true.
3.That I say that the facts stated therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Delhi on this Date of verification day of Month and year of verification that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. M.C. NO. Criminal miscellaneous number OF 2024.
IN
CRL. WRIT PETITION No.Writ petition number OF 2024.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Petitioner 1's name
& ANR.: PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
Ct. Cases No. Complaint case number
U/s.: Section of offence
P.S.: Police station.
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR STAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE LD. TRIAL COURT IN CT. CASES NO. Complaint case number.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-
1.That the Petitioners have filed the accompanying Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which is pending before this Hon'ble Court for adjudication. The contents of the same are true to the knowledge of the Petitioners, and the same may kindly be read as an integral part of this application, as the contents thereof are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
2.That the Petitioners have a good prima facie case in their favour and are likely to succeed therein; and in case the relief claimed in the present application is not granted, the Petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
3.That the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondents.
4.That the Petitioners have no other efficacious remedy except to file the present Writ Petition.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to grant a stay of the proceedings pending before the Ld. Trial Court at Trial court complex Courts, Delhi, in C.C. No. Complaint case number, titled as Complaint case title, till the final decision of the accompanying Writ Petition, in the interest of justice, equity and the circumstances of the case.
Any other order / relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the above-said facts and circumstances of the case.
The lower court record may also kindly be summoned.
Such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed, in order to meet the ends of justice.
PETITIONERS
Through
Place: New Delhi
Dated:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. M.C. NO. Criminal miscellaneous number OF 2024.
IN
CRL. WRIT PETITION No.Writ petition number OF 2024.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Petitioner 1's name
& ANR.: PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Sh. Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Sh. Deponent's father's name, R/o Deponent's address, presently at New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
1.That I am the Petitioner No. 1 in the above-mentioned case and, as such, I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, and hence competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the contents of the accompanying application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been read over and explained to me in vernacular, and having understood the same, I say that the facts stated therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Delhi on this Date of verification day of Month and year of verification. That the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. M.C. NO. Criminal miscellaneous number OF 2024.
IN
CRL. WRIT PETITION No.Writ petition number OF 2024.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Petitioner 1's name
& ANR.: PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Director's name, Director of Company name, aged about Director's age years, having its office at Company office address
I, the above-named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1.That I am petitioner no. 2 in the above-mentioned case and, as such, I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and am competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the contents of the accompanying application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been read over and explained to me in the vernacular language, and having understood the same, I state that the facts stated therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on this Date of verification day of Month of verification, Year of verification. That the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, that no part of it is false and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT