ARVIND KEJRIWAL Vs. THE STATE OF U.P AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-51
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (AT: LUCKNOW)
Decided on August 27,2015

ARVIND KEJRIWAL Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of U.P And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. Rishad Murtza, learned Government Advocate and perused the record. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- (i) to quash the order dated 12.08.2015 in Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, "State of U.P. v. Arvind Kejriwal" in pursuance of the Charge-Sheet No.122 of 2014 dated 09.07.2014 in Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi. (ii) to stay the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, "State of U.P. v. Arvind Kejriwal" in pursuance of the Charge Sheet No.122 of 2014 dated 09.07.2014 in Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, during pendency of the present case. (iii) to order to concerned Hon'ble Court for deciding the pending application of the applicant filed under the proviso of Section 239, Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, "State of U.P. v. Arvind Kejriwal" bearing Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the Chief Minister of Delhi against whom a case under Section 125 of Representation of People Act has been registered. The application for discharge under Section 239, Cr.P.C. has been moved which has not yet been decided and the application for personal exemption filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. has wrongly been rejected. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is ready to file the undertakings before the Court that whenever his personal appearance is required, he shall appear personally.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Section 88, Cr.P.C., which reads as under: "88. Power to take bond for appearance. When any person for whose appearance or arrest the officer presiding in any Court is empowered to issue a summons or warrant, is present in such Court, such officer may require such person to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his appearance in such Court, or any other Court to which the case may be transferred for trial".;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.