SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vikas Garg vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 12 January, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 119 / 2018
Vikas Garg S/o Shri Ashok Garg, R/o House No.242, Vikas Nagar,
14/4, Neemuch Police Station Neemuch, MP, Presently R/o 2201,
IIIrd Avenue Seatle, USA.
—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP.
—-Respondent

Connected with
S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 120 / 2018
Vikas Garg S/o Shri Ashok Garg, R/o House No.242, Vikas Nagar,
14/4, Neemuch Police Station Neemuch, MP, Presently R/o 2201,
IIIrd Avenue Seatle, USA.

—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP.

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Naina Saraf.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Godara, PP
Mr. S.S. Hora, for complainant
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Order
12/01/2018

Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as also

learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the

complainant.

These misc. petitions have been preferred on behalf of

accused-petitioner with a prayer to quash and set-aside the order

dated 19.12.2017, whereby the application has been rejected by

trial court for releasing the passport surrendered by the accused-

petitioner in compliance of the order dated 18.11.2017 passed by

the Co-ordinate of this Court in S.B. Criminal Bail Application

No.15406/2017 filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The prayer has also
(2 of 6)
[CRLMP-119/2018]

been made to grant permanent exemption from personal

appearance in Criminal Case No.198/2013 pending before the

Court of Additional Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate No.15,

Jaipur Metropolitan.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused-

petitioner is working on the post of Senior Data Scientist in

Amazon Company at Seattle, WA, USA. She further submits that

the petitioner has come to India on his family leave, which as per

the policy of the company is going to expire on 28.01.2018.

Learned counsel submits that vide e-mail dated 25.11.2017, the

Company has required presence of the petitioner at the company’s

office looking to heavy arrears of work due to be discharged by

the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that it is an

established legal proposition that every person has a right for

earning his livelihood gracefully and to travel as per his wish, may

be with certain reasonable restrictions.

In support of the contentions raised, learned counsel for the

petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in Jitsingh

Kalirai, Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kulbir

Singh Ahuja – Criminal Revision Application No.55 of 1989

decided on 09.06.1989by the Bombay High Court and Rajesh

Sharma Ors. Vs. State of U.P. Anr. – Criminal Appeal

No.1265 of 2017, decided on 27.07.2017 by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the

complainant-respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer

mainly on the ground that the accused-petitioner delayed the
(3 of 6)
[CRLMP-119/2018]

proceedings pending against him since the year 2012 till 2017 by

not recording his presence in the criminal matters pending for the

offence under the Indian Penal Code, Domestic Violence Act and

also in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Learned Public Prosecutor has drawn attention of this Court

to the observations recorded by the trial court in the order

impugned dated 19.12.2017 in regard to such delaying tactics

adopted by the accused-petitioner. It has further been contended

that the amount granted for maintenance of the wife complainant

is also in arrears which has not been paid and the accused-

petitioner is avoiding his service in the proceedings concerned.

Having considered the arguments advanced by both the

sides and the legal proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Rajesh Sharma’s case (supra) in regard to the

proceedings for the offence under Section 498A IPC that “in

respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India, impounding of

passport or issuance of red corner notice should not be a routine.”

This Court finds that the passport which has been surrendered by

the accused-petitioner before the learned trial court deserves to

be released in favour of accused-petitioner with certain conditions.

Preventing the petitioner from joining his job and from

fulfilling the professional requirement can be of no help in the

criminal matters pending against the petitioner. However, it

appears reasonable in the interest of justice that he is subjected

to certain conditions for attending the Court proceedings in a

regulated manner. Indisputably, if he is restricted from taking the

journey to Seattle, WA, USA i.e. the place for his job, it may
(4 of 6)
[CRLMP-119/2018]

adversely affect his career and right to earn his livelihood with

grace which may amount to abuse of process of law.

Thus, while permitting release of the passport of the

petitioner, in order to secure quick and unhampered progress in

the proceedings pending against the accused-petitioner following

conditions are imposed upon him :-

(1)- In all the proceedings pending against the petitioner at the

instance of the complainant-wife till date, wherein the

service of the accused-petitioner has not yet been effected

and even where the proceedings are taking place ex-parte

against him, the accused-petitioner shall get his presence

recorded before the concerned courts at his own within a

period of ten days from today. The list of such cases will be

made available to counsel for the petitioner by the counsel

appearing for the complainant.

(2)- The petitioner shall get a certificate from his employer

company, the self attested copy of which should be

furnished by him to all the courts, wherein the proceedings

against him are pending. Such certificate shall specifically

mention the place and position wherein he is appointed to

work at. In case of any change of job or place of work, the

petitioner will be under obligation to inform the aforesaid

courts within a period of 15 days positively.

(3)- The petitioner shall inform his employer about the details of

the criminal cases pending against him alongwith the

details of courts wherein such cases are pending and

petitioner will ensure that employer company gives him
(5 of 6)
[CRLMP-119/2018]

permission to come back to India for attending such cases

atleast three times in a calendar year.

(4)- The accused-petitioner through counsel representing him

will request the courts concerned for getting the cases

listed during the months of April, August December

atleast once till they are concluded and will ensure to

record his presence before the courts concerned whenever

the cases are so listed during such months. Besides these

three occasions, he may also be required to remain present

before the court concerned as the need arises, and he will

make every endeavour to attend the court whenever called

upon to do so.

(5)- The petitioner shall get prepared a Fixed Deposit in some

nationalized bank at Jaipur in the sum of Rs.1.0 crore

atleast for a period of three years, within a period of one

month from today which will be kept in safe custody with

the court of Additional Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate

No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan. This Fixed Deposit will be kept

as a security for complying with the directions issued by

this Court vide this order.

(6)- The petitioner shall comply with the orders passed in favour

of the complainant wife in the proceedings under Section

125 Cr.P.C. or under Domestic Violence Act and whatever

amount is falling in arrears towards the petitioner till date

as per the order in existence as on today shall be paid to

the complainant wife within a period of 15 days from today.

(7)- On ensuring that the petitioner has fulfilled the conditions
(6 of 6)
[CRLMP-119/2018]

imposed herein-above, the trial court will release the

passport of the petitioner after obtaining his personal bond

and sureties to the satisfaction of that Court alongwith his

undertaking to abide by the conditions mentioned herein

and to surrender the passport in case of default of such

conditions.

Both the misc. petitions are allowed with the terms

conditions stated above and the order dated 19.12.2017 passed

by the Additional Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate No.15,

Jaipur Metropolitan is quashed and set-aside.

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI)J.

Rm/-5960

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh