W.P.(CRL)/1007/2015 of HARSHITA SINGH SULTANIA Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 1007/2015 & Crl. M.A.11259/2015

HARSHITA SINGH SULTANIA

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr.Vikas Mehta, Mr. Varun Singhand Mr. Manish Agarwal, Advs.and Mr. Manish Agarwal, Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS...... Respondents

Through:Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC for the Statewith SI Shankar Lal Kardam, PS Vivek ViharMs. Monika Arora, CGSC with Harsh Ahuja, Adv.for R-4/UOIwith SI Shankar Lal Kardam, PS Vivek ViharMs. Monika Arora, CGSC with Harsh Ahuja, Adv.for R-4/UOI

Mr. Shashi Shaekar, Mr. Satish Mishra and Ms.Nisha, Advs. For R-5Nisha, Advs. For R-5

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARO R R%10.08.2015

The present writ petition has been filed by the wife of the respondent No.5seeking directions to respondents No.1, 2 and 3 to serve notice onrespondent No.5 regarding his appearance before Crime Against WomenCell, East District on 12.5.2015.

The additional prayer in the writ petition is that the respondents No.1 to 4 bedirected to ensure that respondent No.5 does not flee the country pendinginquiry on the complaint of the petitioner.

When this writ petition came up for hearing, notices were issued on10.07.2015 to respondents No.1, 2 and 3 which was accepted by Ms. Richa

Kapoor, learned Additional Standing Counsel.

Considering the apprehension of the petitioner that respondent No.5 mightflee from the country since he had been manoeuvring for obtaining visa onhis passport, the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 after enquiry from the Ministryof External Affairs directed the respondent No.5 to submit/surrender hispassport.

It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that whilemoving his application for anticipatory bail, respondent No.5 was directed todeposit his passport with the Investigating Officer who was investigating thecase.Later the application filed by respondent No.5 was withdrawn andanother application was filed seeking pre arrest bail.

By order dated 23.6.2015 passed in Bail Application No.5199/2015 theAdditional District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara, keeping in mind that thedispute was basically in the nature of matrimonial discord between thepetitioner and respondent No.5 referred the matter to the Mediation Centreof Karkardooma Courts.

The stand of respondent No.5, before the Court below was that his passportwas lying with the U.S Embassy. He was, therefore, directed to produce thereceipt of the deposit of the passport with US Embassy with the IOconcerned within three days.

Finally, by the order dated 30.6.2015, Bail Application No.5199/2015 wasrejected as being not maintainable and premature. However, the I.O. wasdirected to serve 5 days notice on respondent No.5 in case permission to

arrest him was received by the concerned police officer.The respondentNo.5 was noticed by the police and he has joined the investigationsthereafter.

This stand of the respondent No.5, alerted the petitioner, leading to the filingof the present petition.

During the pendency of this writ petition respondent No.5 preferred anapplication (Crl.M.A No.11259/2015) seeking release of his passport as thesame was taken by the respondent authorities pursuant to the notice havingbeen issued to them in the present writ petition.It was submitted byrespondent No.5 (the applicant) that he is ready and willing to give anundertaking before the Court concerned with copy of the same to the IO,that he shall not leave the country without taking prior permission of theconcerned Court and without intimating the IO. It has also been submittedthat though visa for three years has been granted to the applicant, it hasbecome meaningless as he has lost his job in the US.

Learned counsel for the petitioner still has apprehension that respondentNo.5 would not be available for facing trial.

Considering the stand of respondent No.5, viz. his readiness to give theundertaking as aforesaid, this Court is inclined to direct the respondentauthorities to return the passport to respondent No.5.

Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned Additional Standing counsel, after consulting theofficer attending the Court in this matter, returned the passport to respondentNo.5, in Court, which has been accepted by him, in presence of his counsel.

The respondent No.5, is directed to file such undertaking within week,before the Court concerned. The undertaking of the petitioner would besigned by the father of the petitioner, who is government servant, as awitness therein, and he too, would be bound by such undertaking.

In case the petitioner flouts the undertaking, the concerned Court would beat liberty to take necessary coercive action to ensure the presence of thepetitioner.

The Crl.M.A No.11259/2015 is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid.

Since the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed, writ petitionNo.1007/2015 is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

AUGUST 10, 2015ns