9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty which keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, is appropriate and in accordance with law. Nothing has been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said amount of penalty cannot be imposed by the Court. Petition dismissed. - CRM-M-1619-2022 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana for respondent No.2. ORDER VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dated 02.12.2021 to the extent that penalty amounting to ₹ 50,000/- has been impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 50,000/- in addition to the petitioner furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each. It is contended that the said amount of ₹ 50,000/- is highly excessive and the same may either be set aside or reduced. Notice of motion. On advance notice, Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana, appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and have submitted that they are fully prepared to argue the matter and assist this Court. They have vehemently opposed the present petition and have thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present petition. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and for not cross-examining the witnesses of the complainant and ultimately, on 21.01.2019, the defence of the petitioner was struck off and thereafter, the petitioner had filed revision petition before the Sessions Court which had granted one opportunity to the petitioner to lead defence evidence and also imposed cost of ₹ 10,000/-. It is submitted that even the said cost of ₹ 10,000/- has not been paid by the petitioner and he has not appeared before the Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner was very well aware about the proceedings and even after service, has got the document prepared from a private Doctor to make out a case for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, an amount of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. Date of Order:15.12.2021 Sd/- RAJESH MALHOTRA, SESSIONS JUDGE, SIRSA. (UID No.HR0059) On the basis of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, further time of 30 days to deposit the amount of ₹ 50,000/- was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner had not challenged the order dated 15.12.2021. The petitioner after having moved an application dated 15.12.2021, and after having suffered order dated 15.12.2021, is estopped from challenging the order dated 02.12.2021. Further perusal of the zimni orders would show that in the present case, penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed as cost is appropriate and in accordance with law. In the present case, complaint under Section 138 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to examine the said witness. Even on 07.12.2018, although, one CW was present but however, was not examined and adjournment was sought by the complainant and further cost of ₹ 800/- was imposed upon the petitioner, thus, totaling the costs to ₹ 1600/-. On 21.01.2019, one CW was again presented, however, adjournment was sought by the proxy counsel for the petitioner and thus, cross-examination of the complainant witness-CW1 was closed as in spite of several opportunity given for cross-examination, the petitioner did not do the same. On 10.06.2019, another adjournment was sought by the petitioner and on 25.07.2019 when the petitioner did not appear then again, his bail bonds were for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt has been set aside and revision of accused/applicant has been allowed subject to costs of ₹ 10,000/- payable by the revisionist/accused and out of this amount of costs, 50% shall be deposited in DLSA, Sirsa and the remaining 50% shall be paid to the respondent/complainant through counsel. On depositing/payment of costs, the revisionist/accused will be afforded an opportunity by the Ld. Trial Court to the revisionist/accused to cross-examine the complainant's witness i.e. CW1. Today complainant not present. NBW issued against accused and B/w issued against his surety received back unexecuted. Let, fresh NBW against accused and fresh b/w against his surety be also issued for date fixed. Court notice to complainant be also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
