In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court by a man facing trial for impersonating as employee of the Municipal Corporation, Delhi, seeking permission to summon and examine four material witnesses within a couple of days, among other prayers, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia stated that the petition was completely frivolous and dismissed the same with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited within a week.
In alternative to the above prayer, the petitioner prayed for the four orders passed previously to be declared void in the event that he was not granted an opportunity to summon defence witnesses. The petitioner had two other alternative prayers: he sought that a statement against him be declared forged and read only to a certain extent, and that the denial of permission to summon defence witnesses be declared contrary to law.
Considering the peculiar prayers, the Court asked the petitioner to explain the same, but he could not do so. Regarding the permission to summon and examine four witnesses, the Court asked whether any application had been filed before the Trial Court seeking the same. Even though the petitioner mentioned that he had filed the said application, he was unable to present the same before the Court.
Further, regarding the other prayers, the Court questioned the petitioner as to how the present Single Bench could set aside an order by a Division Bench, but there was no response. The petitioner could also not respond when the Court questioned how a statement recorded by the Trial Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), could be treated as forged and fabricated. Questions as to how a judicial action could be treated as an offence under Section 198 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) could also not be answered by the petitioner.
The respondent disclosed that a previous order by the Division Bench had also held that the petitioner’s acts were frivolous and constituted a gross abuse of process. It was mentioned that the trial against the petitioner for impersonating as an MCD employee was at the final stage, and all his efforts were to protract the trial.
The Court not only held the present matter to be devoid of merit, but also to be completely frivolous for protracting the trial. Thus, the petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited with the DLSA, Central District, Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi, within a week. Lastly, the Court directed the Secretary, DLSA, to ensure recovery of the costs dated 23-02-2206 imposed by the trial court as well as the present costs.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Manoj Kr. Dwivedi
For Respondent – Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari (ASC), Mr. Arjit Sharma, Ms. Sakshi Jha
