Delhi HC pulls up two trial courts for judicial indiscipline after man accused of cheating gets protection from arrest

On Wednesday (September 24) the High Court refused his plea, and pulled up both the Magistrate Court and Sessions Court judges for “judicial indiscipline”.

Jain and some others are accused in a case pertaining to the sale of a property worth Rs 1.32 crore in 2021 to complainant Tilak Raj Jain. When the complainant tried to sell this property in September 2023, he discovered that the deed was allegedly forged, and was executed in the name of “fictitious persons”.

Jain was subsequently booked by Delhi Police for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and criminal conspiracy.

In his order, Justice Girish Kathpalia of the HC said “it appears to be a case of judicial indiscipline that the Judicial Magistrate First Class-04 (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi, and the Additional Sessions Judge-04 (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi, despite being aware that two anticipatory bail applications of the accused/ applicant had already been dismissed by this court, followed by dismissal of the SLPs (special leave petitions), stayed the arrest of the accused/applicant”.

“The learned Magistrate did not care to even flip to just the previous order on his record,” Justice Kathpalia added.

The HC also noted that despite the dismissal of the earlier applications for anticipatory bail, the investigating officer had chosen not to arrest the accused.

This was “somewhat unusual in the backdrop of arrest status of the remaining accused persons of this case FIR”, the court said. The court said that the “role of the IO/SI Prashant Kumar of PS Prashant Vihar needs to be probed by the concerned authorities”.

Jain had joined the investigation during the period of interim protection but he later absconded. Non Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against him.

Justice Kathpalia said that it could not be accepted that the “Magistrate or the…Additional Sessions Judge were unaware of the dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail applications of the accused/ applicant till the Supreme Court”.

“…Even the learned Magistrate was apparently not careful to apply mind and probe as to what was the nature of “disposal” of the SLPs, in the sense as to whether the same were “dismissed” or “disposed of with some directions…,” he said.