[2009] 3 S.C.R. 441
'""
NARESH KUMAR
A
V.
KALA WATI & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 2002)
FEBRUARY 25, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, V.S. SIRPURKAR AND ASOK
KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.)
'
-(
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
c
Criminal revision filed by complainant - Heard by High
Court in absence of counsel for revisionist- HELD: Reasons
l
for non-appearance of counsel for revisionist, having been
explained, matter remitted to High Court for disposal afresh
•
in accordance with law.
D
{
The instant appeal was filed by the complainant
against the order passed by the High Court dismissing
his revision petition questioning the acquittal of
respondent nos. 1 and 2 by the trial court of the charges
E
u/ss 498-A/302/34 IPC. It was contended for the appellant
that the High Court dismissed the revision petition in the
-~
absence of his counsel with the help of amicus curiae
..
who did not have even records with him .
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: It is not necessary to go into the merits of the
case. The appellant has indicated the reason for which
there was no appearance when the matter was called
out. That being the position, the order of the High Court
G
is set aside and the matter remitted to it for disposal
afresh in accordance with law and expeditiously. [Para
5) [443-C-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal
441
H
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 3 S.C.R.
A Appeal No. 578 of 2002.
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.9.01 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Revision No. 138/1996.
Rajendra Singhvi, Maitreyi Singhvi, K.K.L. Gautam and
B Ashok Kumar Singh for the Appellants.
c
D
E
F
G
H
Nagendra Rai, Tara Chandra Sharma and Neelam Sharma
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High
Court dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the appellant.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The appellant is the brother of one Smt. Rekha Rani Jain
(hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') Respondents 1 &
2 faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable
under Section 498A, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.80 of 1992 held
that the prosecution has been able to establish the accusations.
Appellant filed a revision petition questioning acquittal. On the
day the matter was fixed before the High Court it appears the
learned counsel appearing for the present appellant did not
appear before the Court and only the learned counsel for the
State appeared.
The High Court held that since the appellant was not
represented, the matter had to be decided ex parte. The High
Court appointed a learned counsel as Amicus Curie and
recorded that with the assistance of the learned Amicus Curie
and learned counsel for the State, the records perused and
were stayed there was no case for interference.
~
' ...
•
)---
)
NARESH KUMAR v. KALA WATI & ORS.
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
443
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the
A
date fixed there was an accident because of which learned
counsel who was appearing in the case all through could not
appear. It is pointed out that learned Amicus Curie did not
have even records with him and he could have hardly rendered
any assistance to the court. It is also submitted that the accused
B
persons were not represented before the High Court.
4. Learned counsel for the accused on the other hand
submitted that the High Court analysed the evidence in great
detail .and no interference is called for.
c
5. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. The
appellant has indicated the reason for which there was no
appearance when the matter was called before Learned Single
Judge. That being the position, we set aside the impugned
order and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal
D
in accordance with law. To avoid unnecessary delay, let the
parties appear before the High Court on the 3rd of March,
2009 without any further notice. The learned Chief Justice of
the High Court is requested to direct listing of the case before
an appropriate Bench. It is made clear that we have not
E
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
RP.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex