Rajiv Bajaj vs.state and Ors

Rajiv Bajaj vs State and Ors

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Oct 17, 2019

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1226020

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/1226020
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Oct 17, 2019
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

Rajiv Bajaj

Respondent

State and Ors

Excerpt

.....with petitioner in person versus state and ors ........ respondents through: mr.k.k. ghai, app for state si romi kanojia, ps chitranjan park coram: hon'ble mr. justice suresh kumar kait judgment (oral) vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby quashing of fir no.95/2017 registered at ps chitranjan park for the offences under sections 420/468/471 and 34 ipc. the facts of the case are that the petitioner was the president of an erstwhile group housing society known as a ‘bank-men’s cghs limited and which was to develop group housing multi storey flats at dhirpur, delhi. respondent nos.2 and 3 had booked units in the said project. as delivery of the unit could not be made due to issues in land allotment from dda and liquidation of the said society, hence, respondent nos.2 and 3 through their respective spa holders filed a criminal complaint which culminated into the fir in question against the petitioner and other officers crl.m.c. 279/2019 page 1 of 2 of said society. the matter is under investigation and till date, no charge sheet has been filed. the petitioner has negotiated a settlement with respondent nos.2 and 3. upon perusal of the settlement, respondent nos.2 and 3 had agreed to accept refund of their entire amount from the petitioner. the attorney of respondent nos.2 and 3 is personally present in the court today. taking into account the aforesaid facts, this court is inclined to quash the concerned fir as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioners any further. for the reasons afore-recorded, the fir no.95/2017 registered at ps chitranjan park for the offences under sections 420/468/471 and 34 ipc and consequent proceedings therefrom are quashed. the petition is allowed accordingly. dasti. (suresh kumar kait) judge october17 2019 neelam crl.m.c. 279/2019 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:

17. h October, 2019 + CRL.M.C. 279/2019 RAJIV BAJAJ ........ Petitioner

Through: Mr.Shreyas Mehrotra, Adv. with petitioner in person versus STATE AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS

Through: Mr.K.K. Ghai, APP for State SI Romi Kanojia, PS Chitranjan Park CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT JUDGMENT

(ORAL) Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby quashing of FIR No.95/2017 registered at PS Chitranjan Park for the offences under Sections 420/468/471 and 34 IPC. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was the President of an erstwhile Group Housing Society known as a ‘Bank-Men’s CGHS Limited and which was to develop group housing multi storey flats at Dhirpur, Delhi. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 had booked units in the said project. As delivery of the unit could not be made due to issues in land allotment from DDA and liquidation of the said society, hence, respondent Nos.2 and 3 through their respective SPA holders filed a criminal complaint which culminated into the FIR in question against the petitioner and other officers CRL.M.C. 279/2019 Page 1 of 2 of said society. The matter is under investigation and till date, no charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner has negotiated a settlement with respondent Nos.2 and 3. Upon perusal of the settlement, respondent Nos.2 and 3 had agreed to accept refund of their entire amount from the petitioner. The attorney of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is personally present in the Court today. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to quash the concerned FIR as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioners any further. For the reasons afore-recorded, the FIR No.95/2017 registered at PS Chitranjan Park for the offences under Sections 420/468/471 and 34 IPC and consequent proceedings therefrom are quashed. The petition is allowed accordingly. Dasti. (SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE OCTOBER17 2019 neelam CRL.M.C. 279/2019 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2019 Same Parties Rajiv Bajaj vs State and Ors Same Subject Land Acquisition