Abhishek Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner for restoration of Cr.M.P. No. 1590 of 2019 to its original file, which

was dismissed on 05.07.2019 for non-prosecution.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time when the case was called out, the arguing counsel for the petitioner was arguing in a matter

listed before Court No.10 and even the junior counsel was not available in the court as she could not come to Court due to personal reason and

accordingly, due to non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner, the Cr.M.P. No. 1590 of 2019 was dismissed. It is next submitted that the

petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said criminal miscellaneous petition and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioner

will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that Cr.M.P. No. 1590 of 2019 be restored to its original file.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for restoration of Cr.M.P. No. 1590 of 2019 and

submits that though the petitioner has been given the privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.02.2019, passed in A.B.A. No. 6999 of 2018

consequent upon his undertaking to pay ad interim victim compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- to the opposite party no.2 namely Priti Singh but he has not

surrendered before the court below and moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7385 of 2019. The

petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the said in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7385 of 2019 by submitting before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India that the petitioner never made the submission before the High Court as recorded in the impugned order and thus he would like to move before

the High Court seeking a Review. The Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7385 of 2019 was consequently dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the

petitioner to move before the High Court. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submits that the petitioner made false submission before

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and in this Court on 21.02.2019 an undertaking having been made by him to pay Rs.11,00,000/-, only he was

given the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the petitioner has filed Cr.M.P.

No. 1590 of 2019 with a prayer to modify/review the part of the order passed in A.B.A. No. 6999 of 2018 by this Court but in order to harass the

opposite party no.2, none from the side of the petitioner turned up before this Court in-spite of repeated calls, resulting in dismissal of the said Cr.M.P.

No. 1590 of 2019. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that a lawyer remaining busy in another court is not a

sufficient ground for restoration of the said Cr.M.P. No. 1590 of 2019, more so when the same is done to harass the wife of the petitioner and to

avoid payment of the victim compensation amount of Rs.11,00,000/-, which the petitioner undertook to pay, consequent upon which his anticipatory

bail application was allowed.

Today, during the course of submission before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said in Special Leave to Appeal

(Crl.) No. 7385 of 2019 was filed in connection with the order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1590 of 2019 but it was found to be a false

submission and when this order is dictated, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a slip of tongue but keeping in view the tone

and the emphatic manner in which such submission was made, the same does not appears to be a slip of tounge hence this Court thinks it proper to put

it in record.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner undertakes to pay Rs.1,10,000/- as cost to the opposite party no.2, in

case the Cr.M.P. No. 1590 of 2019 is restored to its original file.

Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for parties and the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit

case where Cr.M.P. No. 1590 of 2019 be restored to its original file subject of payment of cost of Rs.1,10,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in

favour of the opposite party no.2 namely Priti Singh by handing over the same to the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 appearing in the

record within two weeks, failing which, this conditional order shall not be given effect to and the Cr.M.P. No. 1590 of 2019 will remain dismissed.

In case, the said proof of handing over the demand draft to the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 within two weeks from the date of this

order is filed, Cr.M.P. No. 1590 of 2019 will be restored to its original file and the same be listed under appropriate heading.

This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.