Rakesh Kumar Verma and ors. Vs. State

Rakesh Kumar Verma and ors. vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 13, 2002

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/704923

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/704923
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: K.S. Gupta, J.
Decided On: Feb 13, 2002
Case Number: Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 4540 of 2001
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

The case debated on whether the petitioner can take the advantage of the omission of trespass - In the instant case, the petitioner was alleged with criminal trespass - The complainant had failed to mention the date of criminal trespass - It was ruled that petitioner would not be available to take advantage under Se...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 438; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 380, 420 and 448; Nagotiable Instruments Act

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rakesh Kumar Verma and ors.

Advocate Sidharth Luthra, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate Anil Soni, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 438; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 380, 420 and 448; Nagotiable Instruments Act
Reported In: 99(2002)DLT1

Excerpt

.....is relevant. fourthly, since travel to and fro the place of posting may not appear to everyone as an incident of military service, a specific provision has been incorporated in the pension regulations to bring such travel within the entitlement for disability pension if an injury is sustained in this duration. fifthly, it cannot be said that each and every injury sustained while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to claim disability pension. sixthly, provisions treating casual leave as on duty would be relevant for deciding questions pertaining to pay or to the right of the authorities to curtail or cancel the leave. lastly, injury or death resulting from an activity not connected with military service would not justify and sustain a claim for disability pension. this is so regardless f whether the injury or death has occurred at the place of posting or during working hours. this is because attributability to military service is a factor which is required to be established. - 1 is involved in 7 more cases of similar type and he is also a bad character of bundle 'a' of p. 1 in the offence(s) complained of, i am inclined to admit both of them to anticipatory bail. 20,000/- with one surety in like amount each to the satisfaction of sho/ io concerned......according to him, the additions made in the draft lease deed are not in the hand of complainant on her husband. it is not in dispute that a total amount of rs. 90,000/- was paid by way of security to the complainant by petitioner no. 1. controversy mainly centres around the fact if criminal trespass into the said flat was committed on 17th september, 2001 as alleged in the fir or possession of said flat was handed over by the complainant to petitioner no. 1 on 28th july, 2001 as is stated by him. in my view, petitioner no. 1, prima facie cannot take any advantage of the omission to mention about criminal trespass into the flat in the said notice dated 6th october, 2001 which seems to have been issued for the purpose of initiation of proceedings against petitioner no. 1 under the negotiable instruments act, as report about trespass had already been made earlier on 18th september, 2001 to the police by the complainant. in ordinary course, without getting the post dated cheques towards advance rent for the month of october, 2001, the complainant would not have parted with possession of said entire flat on 28th july, 2001 to petitioner no. 1. also having considered the statement of chaman lal dhawari, property broker through whom the deal of letting was settled as also facts and circumstances of case, i am of the view that petitioner no. 1 does not deserve to be admitted to anticipatory bail. however, considering the role attributed to petitioner no. 2, wife and petitioner no. 3, father of petitioner no. 1 in the offence(s) complained of, i am inclined to admit both of them to anticipatory bail. in the event of arrest of both of them, they will be released on furnishing personal bond in the sum of rs. 20,000/- with one surety in like amount each to the satisfaction of sho/ io concerned. they will, however, join investigation as and when required by the io. anticipatory bail to rakesh kumar verma/petitioner no. 1 is declined. dusty.

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.S. Gupta, J.

1. On the report made by Smt. Prem Aggarwal, owner of flat No. 140, Mount Kailash, East of Kailash, New Delhi, case under Sections 448/420/380, IPC was registered on 27th October, 2001 at P.S. Lajpat Nagar. Submission advanced by Mr. Lutbra is that after tenancy on a monthly rent @ Rs. 8,000/- was created in respect of the said flat, the petitioner No. 1 was handed over possession thereof on 28th July, 2001 and though rent up to August, 2001 had been paid to the complainant/ landlady, she did not issue any rent receipt. His further submission is that 5 post dated cheques for Rs. 30,000/- each were given by petitioner No. 1 to the complainant for buying a car for him and in case trespass into the said flat had been committed on 17th September, 2001 as alleged by complainant, she would not have omitted to state about the same in the notice dated 6th October, 2001 got issued by her to petitioner No. 1. On the other hand, Sh. Soni points out that petitioner No. 1 is involved in 7 more cases of similar type and he is also a bad character of Bundle 'A' of P.S. Janak Puri. His further content on is that rate of rent was Rs. 30,000/- per month and 5 post dated cheques for Rs. 30,000/-each were issued towards advance rent for the months of October, 2001 to February, 2002 as tenancy was to commence w.e.f. 1st October, 2001. His further contention is that though complaint was made to SHO P.S. Lajpat Nagar on 18th September, 2001 immediately after the trespass was committed, FIR was registered only on 27th October, 2001 and for the delay, complainant cannot be blamed. According to him, the additions made in the draft lease deed are not in the hand of complainant on her husband. It is not in dispute that a total amount of Rs. 90,000/- was paid by way of security to the complainant by petitioner No. 1. Controversy mainly centres around the fact if criminal trespass into the said flat was committed on 17th September, 2001 as alleged in the FIR or possession of said flat was handed over by the complainant to petitioner No. 1 on 28th July, 2001 as is stated by him. In my view, petitioner No. 1, prima facie cannot take any advantage of the omission to mention about criminal trespass into the flat in the said notice dated 6th October, 2001 which seems to have been issued for the purpose of initiation of proceedings against petitioner No. 1 under the Negotiable Instruments Act, as report about trespass had already been made earlier on 18th September, 2001 to the police by the complainant. In ordinary course, without getting the post dated cheques towards advance rent for the month of October, 2001, the complainant would not have parted with possession of said entire flat on 28th July, 2001 to petitioner No. 1. Also having considered the statement of Chaman Lal Dhawari, property broker through whom the deal of letting was settled as also facts and circumstances of case, I am of the view that petitioner No. 1 does not deserve to be admitted to anticipatory bail. However, considering the role attributed to petitioner No. 2, wife and petitioner No. 3, father of petitioner No. 1 in the offence(s) complained of, I am inclined to admit both of them to anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest of both of them, they will be released on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in like amount each to the satisfaction of SHO/ IO concerned. They will, however, join investigation as and when required by the IO. Anticipatory bail to Rakesh Kumar Verma/petitioner No. 1 is declined. dusty.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2002 Same Parties Rakesh Kumar Verma and ors. vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.S. Gupta, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 438; Indi...

Criminal