Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 185 (GUJ)

Chirag Priyadan Shah v. State of Gujarat

2022-02-02

V.M.PANCHOLI

body2022
JUDGMENT : V.M. Pancholi, J. 1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. L.B. Dabhi for respondent no. 1-State of Gujarat and learned advocate, Mr. Kaivan Dastoor for the respondent no. 2 waive service of notice of Rule. 2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the impugned order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate NIA Court No. 30, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 51792/2018, whereby the learned Sessions Judge imposed cost of Rs. 7,000/- for granting an opportunity to submit written arguments. 3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Mehul Mehta for the petitioner, learned advocate, Mr. L.B. Dabhi for the respondent no. 1-State of Gujarat and learned advocate, Mr. Kaivan Dastoor for the respondent no. 2. 4. It is pointed out by learned advocate for the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 herein has filed private complaint being Criminal Case No. 51792/2018 against the petitioner under the provision of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the learned Additional Cheif Metropolitan Magistrate NIA Court No. 30, Ahmedabad and the proceeding is going on and is at the stage of submission of the written arguments by the parties. It is, however, submitted that lawyer engaged by the petitioner was not remaining present nor informing the proceeding taken place on a fixed date and, hence, the petitioner has changed his lawyer and now new lawyer is appointed. It is, therefore, submitted that because of the above facts, the written arguments could not be produced before the learned Sessions Court on the date fixed and, hence, the learned Sessions Judge, by impugned order, allowed the petitioner to produce written arguments on the next date on a condition to deposit Rs. 7,000/-. 5. It is submitted that the cost imposed upon the petitioners by the learned Sessions Judge while passing impugned order is too harsh and, hence, same is required to be deleted as because of the conduct of the advocate, the petitioner may not be made to suffer. However at this stage, it is submitted that considering the facts of the case, the petitioners are ready and willing to pay reasonable amount towards the cost instead of such huge cost. 6. However at this stage, it is submitted that considering the facts of the case, the petitioners are ready and willing to pay reasonable amount towards the cost instead of such huge cost. 6. On the other hand, learned APP as well as learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 have opposed this petition and submitted that there is no error committed by the learned Sessions Judge while passing impugned order. However, learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 has fairly submitted that if the amount is reduced, he has no objection subject to submitting written arguments on the next date. 7. In view of the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the parties and in view of the documents placed on record, it is revealed that the trial arising out of the private complaint is going on and is at the stage of final arguments and the written arguments is to be submitted by the petitioner, however as the petitioner has not submitted written arguments despite granting time, the impugned order has been passed. However on the request being made by learned advocate for the petitioner, the amount towards the cost for submission of written arguments is required to be reduced in the interest of justice. 8. Therefore, the present petition stands allowed partly. The impugned order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate NIA Court No. 30, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 51792/2018 is hereby modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 7,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner, the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards the cost for submission of the written arguments as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order. 9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.