Sumit Gupta vs.state

Sumit Gupta vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 12, 2017

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1202665

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1202665
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Jan 12, 2017
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sumit Gupta

Respondent

State

Excerpt

.....156(3) cr.p.c. was dismissed.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the file. the petitioner has filed a complaint case under section 190 cr.p.c. against the respondents therein for commission of offences under sections 384/406/420 ipc. application under section 156(3) cr.p.c. was filed for directions to the sho/dcp of police station preet vihar for registration of the fir. the trial court for detailed reasons declined to crl.m.c.2302/2016 page 1 of 2 issue any such direction. the case was adjourned for recording statements of the witnesses under section 202 cr.p.c.3. the trial court noted in the impugned order that the facts and circumstances of the case were within the complainant’s knowledge. identity of the suspects is also known and no investigation by police is required at this stage.4. the complainant as a matter of right cannot insist for investigation by the police under section 156(3) cr.p.c. as per allegations in the complaint, the complainant had entered into an agreement to install lift at his residence. the deal was finalized and assurance was given by the suspects to install lift of brand quality. a sum of `9,10,000/- was paid, as agreed, by way of cheques. it is alleged that subsequently the suspects demanded more money and the lift was not installed. on the face of it, the dispute between the parties seems to be of civil nature.5. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, i find no merit in the present petition and it is dismissed. (s.p.garg) judge january12 2017 sa crl.m.c.2302/2016 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON : JANUARY12 2017 CRL.M.C.2302/2016 + SUMIT GUPTA Through : Puneet Goel, Advocate. ........ Petitioner

VERSUS STATE CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG Through : Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP. ..... Respondent S.P.GARG, J.

(ORAL) 1. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality of order dated 22.04.2016 of learned ACMM, Karkardooma Courts, by which the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the file. The petitioner has filed a complaint case under Section 190 Cr.P.C. against the respondents therein for commission of offences under Sections 384/406/420 IPC. Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed for directions to the SHO/DCP of Police Station Preet Vihar for registration of the FIR. The Trial Court for detailed reasons declined to Crl.M.C.2302/2016 Page 1 of 2 issue any such direction. The case was adjourned for recording statements of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

3. The Trial Court noted in the impugned order that the facts and circumstances of the case were within the complainant’s knowledge. Identity of the suspects is also known and no investigation by police is required at this stage.

4. The complainant as a matter of right cannot insist for investigation by the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. As per allegations in the complaint, the complainant had entered into an agreement to install lift at his residence. The deal was finalized and assurance was given by the suspects to install lift of brand quality. A sum of `9,10,000/- was paid, as agreed, by way of cheques. It is alleged that subsequently the suspects demanded more money and the lift was not installed. On the face of it, the dispute between the parties seems to be of civil nature.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the present petition and it is dismissed. (S.P.GARG) JUDGE JANUARY12 2017 sa Crl.M.C.2302/2016 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2017 Same Parties Sumit Gupta vs State Same Subject Land Acquisition