Unless the finding of the court below whose decision is sought to be challenged either in the revisional jurisdiction or under Section 482 CrPC is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the High Court would not interfere with its decision exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The aforesaid has been relied upon by the Delhi High Court while adjudicating the case of Subhash v. State (NCT of Delhi) [CRL.M.C.1299/2021] which was decided by the single judge bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad on 25th June2021.
The fact of the case are as follows. This is a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court in FIR No. 305/2020. The prosecutrix filed a complaint stating the misbehaving she underwent at the hands of petitioner along with his wife, son and daughter-in-law. Hence, she filed a complaint against them for offences under Section 323, 354, 354B, 506, 509 and 34 IPC read with Section 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The bail was given to the petitioner by an order dated 24.11.2020. One of the conditions imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail was that the petitioner shall stay at least 25 kms. away from the house of the prosecutrix till further orders. The petitioner filed an application on 16.01.2021 stating that he had heart attack and stent was attached in his heart. Considering the health condition, the learned Additional Sessions Judge relaxed the condition and permitted the petitioner to stay in his house by order dated 25.01.2021. The relaxation was extended by one more month by order dated 24.02.2021. Another application had been filed for further extension. The learned Trial Court after considering all the facts and circumstances has relaxed the conditions and reduced the distance of 25 kms. to 10 kms. and directed the petitioner to stay at a distance of 10 kms. from the house of the prosecutrix.
The court conducted a perusal of the facts and arguments presented. It was of the opinion that “It is well settled that in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court does not in absence of perversity upset the judgement of the courts below. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge impugned in the present petition cannot be said to be perverse. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has relaxed the condition on three occasions. The condition that the petitioner be directed to stay away from the place of residence of the petitioner has been modified and the distance has been reduced from 25 kms. to 10 kms. The petitioner is not justified in repeatedly approaching the courts for modifying the conditions. The repeated attempts on the part of the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. However, this should not be taken as a total prohibition on the part of the petitioner to approach the courts for relaxation of conditions if there is a material change in circumstance. In view of the above, present petition under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed.”