21 February 2024 Theft >> Criminal Law  

A Delhi High Court petition has been dismissed against charges levied on a landlord, Vijay Kumar Agarwal. The charges include theft, trespass, and criminal intimidation stemming from a 2002 tenant dispute.

Facts:

• The Petition details a 2002 incident where Vijay Kumar Agarwal, the landlord, allegedly confined tenants in their rented property and stole their belongings. The petition further accuses Agarwal of threatening the tenants with arrest while impersonating an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer. The Appellant, Vijay Kumar Agarwal, is facing criminal charges of theft, criminal trespass, and mischief in a court within the Indian legal system (specific details of the alleged offenses are unavailable from the provided source). The lower court denied the Appellant’s motion to quash the aforementioned charges.

Legal Battle:

Following a First Information Report (FIR) filed in 2002, Agarwal has challenged the framing of charges against him through multiple petitions. This recent petition argues that lower courts failed to consider his requests for additional documents before charges were formalized. Agarwal claims this prejudiced his defense.

Petitioner's Arguments:

Agarwal argues that the lower courts did not hear his arguments regarding the need for documents and that this violated the legal principle "actus curiae neminem gravabit" - "the act of the court shall prejudice no one." He cites a Supreme Court case to support his claim that courts have a duty to rectify mistakes.

Prosecution's Response:

The prosecution counters that Agarwal was given ample opportunity to be heard in the lower courts. They reference orders passed by those courts which mention arguments being presented.

Conclusion:

The Appellant was granted the opportunity to present his defense in the lower court, upholding his right to a fair trial under Article 21. The prosecution presented sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the continuation of the charges against The Appellant. Based on these findings, the court dismissed The Appellant appeal, allowing the lower court to proceed with the case.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973    Indian Penal Code, 1860