NARESH KUMARversusKALA WATI & ORS.

                                    [2009] 3 S.C.R. 441


                                     NARESH KUMAR                              A
     '""                                     V.
                                   KALA WATI & ORS.
                            (Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 2002)
                                   FEBRUARY 25, 2009
                                                                               B
                  [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, V.S. SIRPURKAR AND ASOK
                               KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.)
       '
      -(


                    CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
                                                                               c
                     Criminal revision filed by complainant - Heard by High
                Court in absence of counsel for revisionist- HELD: Reasons
l               for non-appearance of counsel for revisionist, having been
                explained, matter remitted to High Court for disposal afresh
     •{         in accordance with law.                                        D
                     The instant appeal was filed by the complainant
                against the order passed by the High Court dismissing
                his revision petition questioning the acquittal of
                respondent nos. 1 and 2 by the trial court of the charges
                u/ss 498-A/302/34 IPC. It was contended for the appellant      E
                that the High Court dismissed the revision petition in the
                absence of his counsel with the help of amicus curiae
-~

           ..   who did not have even records with him.

                    Disposing of the appeal, the Court                         F
                     HELD: It is not necessary to go into the merits of the
                case. The appellant has indicated the reason for which
                there was no appearance when the matter was called
                out. That being the position, the order of the High Court
                is set aside and the matter remitted to it for disposal        G
                afresh in accordance with law and expeditiously. [Para
                5) [443-C-D]

                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                Criminal
                                            441                                H
    442         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2009] 3 S.C.R.


A Appeal No. 578 of 2002.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 12.9.01 of the High
    Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Revision No. 138/1996.

      Rajendra Singhvi, Maitreyi Singhvi, K.K.L. Gautam and
B Ashok Kumar Singh for the Appellants.

          Nagendra Rai, Tara Chandra Sharma and Neelam Sharma
                                                                          '...
    for the Respondent.

c         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
    to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High
    Court dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the appellant.

D         2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:                 •

        The appellant is the brother of one Smt. Rekha Rani Jain
  (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') Respondents 1 &
  2 faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable
  under Section 498A, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
E Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Learned Additional
  Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.80 of 1992 held
  that the prosecution has been able to establish the accusations.               )---
                                                                      ~
  Appellant filed a revision petition questioning acquittal. On the
  day the matter was fixed before the High Court it appears the
F learned counsel appearing for the present appellant did not
  appear before the Court and only the learned counsel for the
  State appeared.
       The High Court held that since the appellant was not
G represented, the matter had to be decided ex parte. The High
  Court appointed a learned counsel as Amicus Curie and
  recorded that with the assistance of the learned Amicus Curie
  and learned counsel for the State, the records perused and
  were stayed there was no case for interference.
H
              NARESH KUMAR v. KALA WATI & ORS.                    443
                    [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

        3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the       A
    date fixed there was an accident because of which learned
    counsel who was appearing in the case all through could not
    appear. It is pointed out that learned Amicus Curie did not
    have even records with him and he could have hardly rendered
    any assistance to the court. It is also submitted that the accused   B
    persons were not represented before the High Court.
)
        4. Learned counsel for the accused on the other hand
    submitted that the High Court analysed the evidence in great
    detail .and no interference is called for.
                                                                         c
         5. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. The
    appellant has indicated the reason for which there was no
    appearance when the matter was called before Learned Single
    Judge. That being the position, we set aside the impugned
    order and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal      D
    in accordance with law. To avoid unnecessary delay, let the
    parties appear before the High Court on the 3rd of March,
    2009 without any further notice. The learned Chief Justice of
    the High Court is requested to direct listing of the case before
    an appropriate Bench. It is made clear that we have not              E
    expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

          6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
    RP.                                        Appeal disposed of.