Delhi High Court Ordered that person exercising legal right in court has correspondent duty not to act in manner which may lead to violation of others’ rights. This was seen in the case of RAKESH v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) (BAIL APPLN. 652/2022) and the Judgement was presided over by the Coram of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA.
Facts of the case-
As per the statement of the complainant, Reader of the presiding officer, petitioner inquired about the status of his case, pending in the Court. The complainant informed the petitioner that his case is listed on 19.07.2021, on which the petitioner became furious and started vandalizing the furniture present in the court room. Thereafter a PCR call was received at Police Station Farsh Bazar regarding damage inside the Court Room No. 66 of Karkardooma Court, Shahdara, Delhi vide DD No. 41-A.
Furthermore The petitioner also ran after the Reader to assault him. However, the Reader saved himself by entering the gallery at the backside of the Court room. The petitioner is also alleged to have vandalized the articles present in the court room i.e. tables, chairs, fans, LED lights, computers, printers, glass shields and the chair of the learned Judge. On the other hand Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 17.07.2021 and had clean past antecedents. The charge-sheet was stated to have already been filed in the Court on 13.09.2021.
The court ordered that person exercising legal right in court has correspondent duty not to act in manner which may lead to violation of others’ rights. “A person exercising a legal right in the court of law has a corresponding obligation and duty from acting in a manner which may lead to violation of the rights of other individuals,” the Court said.
It further added – “However, in the present case, it cannot be ignored that the petitioner is a first time offender with clean past antecedents and belongs to the marginalised group of the society. The incident appears to have been triggered without any motive owing to some difficulty being faced by the petitioner in the execution of the legal proceedings initiated by him.”
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by Utkarsh Sahu