Delhi High Court slaps ₹1 lakh fine on man trying to stall trial for impersonating MCD staff

Court’s observations

• It was placed on record that the trial court, by a February order, dismissed the application of the petitioner after elaborate discussion.
• The trial court also penalised the petitioner and directed him earlier to deposit Rs 50,000 with the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) of the Rouse Avenue Courts.
• The petitioner had not yet deposited the amount directed by the trial court.
• His counsel, advocate Manoj K Dwivedi, provided no response when asked how this single bench can set aside an order passed by a division bench.
• The petitioner’s counsel did not elaborate as to how a statement recorded by the trial court can be treated as “forged and fabricated”, the Delhi High Court noted.
• He also failed to explain how a judicial action can be treated as contempt or an offence of the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
• The counsel answered positively when asked whether the petitioner had filed any application before the trial court seeking permission to examine the four defence witnesses.
• However, he failed to show any such application or order passed on the same.
• The secretary of the DLSA of Rouse Avenue Courts is directed to ensure recovery of costs imposed by the trial court as well as the costs imposed by this court in this order, by following the process laid down by law.

‘Misuse of order’

• Additional Standing Counsel Sanjeev Bhandari, representing the state, argued that the division bench of this court’s order of October 2023 severely castigated acts of the petitioner as “frivolous and gross abuse of process”.
• He also disclosed that the trial against the petitioner for impersonating a Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) employee is at the stage of final arguments, and all his efforts are to somehow protract the trial.
• He also pointed out that if notice of this petition is issued, the petitioner would misuse that order to get the matter before the trial court adjourned.

‘Advocate not mouthpiece of client’

Previously, the Allahabad High Court advised advocates to refrain from filing “frivolous” petitions or accepting such briefs from their client, pointing out that it wastes the precious time of the court, which could be utilised to decide other matters.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also pulled up the advocate who filed a petition without any merit and stated that an advocate is not merely a “mouthpiece” of his client since he is representing the latter before the court.

“Besides being a representative of his client, an advocate is a responsible officer of the court, and he should assist the court with his precise and concise submissions, wherever possible, with the assistance of relevant laws, including the statutes, rules and judicial precedents,” the court stated in its January order.