Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

inder Pal Singh and ors Vs. State and anr

inder Pal Singh and ors vs State and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Dec 13, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/924902

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

[A. H. Joshi, J.] Indian Penal Code, - Sections 409, 468, 120B, 405 -- Applicants are three in number. The applicant No. 2 was a Mayor. Advances given to contractors are given to expedite the work and against work done or material brought on the site. The accused have allotted the work to those chosen contracto...

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

inder Pal Singh and ors

Respondent

State and anr

Excerpt

[a. h. joshi, j.] indian penal code, - sections 409, 468, 120b, 405 -- applicants are three in number. the applicant no. 2 was a mayor. advances given to contractors are given to expedite the work and against work done or material brought on the site. the accused have allotted the work to those chosen contractors, adverse and hostile to the interest of the corporation. the municipal corporation jalgaon took up this scheme. the implementing authority was the municipal corporation jalgaon. criminal breach of trust. $~27 * in the high court of delhi at new delhi + + crl.m.c. 3982/2011 % judgment delivered on: 13th december, 2011 inder pal singh and ors ..... petitioner through : mr.sunil sethi, adv versus state and anr ..... respondent through: mr. navin sharma, app for state/r-1. mr. samrat nigam, adv. for r-2. coram: hon'ble mr. justice suresh kait suresh kait, j. (oral).1. vide the instant petition petitioner has sought to quash the fir no. 379/98 registered at ps-ambedkar nagar, u/s.379. indian penal code, 1860 and under section 39/44 of indian electricity act and emanating proceedings thereto..2. vide order dated 01.12.2011, respondent no.2. has sought time to verify the payment being made by the petitioner to his client..3. mr. samrat nigam, ld. counsel for respondent no.2. has verified the factum of the petition and submitted that respondent no.2. has received the entire amount. therefore, no issue is pending with the crl.m.c.3982/2011 page 1 of 2 petitioner and if the present fir and emanating proceedings thereto is quashed, respondent no.2. has no objection..4. keeping the statement of ld. counsel for the respondent no.2. into view, i quash the fir no. 379/98 of ps-ambedkar nagar with emanating proceedings thereto..5. crl. m.c. 3982/2011 is accordingly allowed on the above terms..6. dasti. suresh kait, j december 13, 2011 jg crl.m.c.3982/2011 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + + CRL.M.C. 3982/2011 % Judgment delivered on: 13th December, 2011 INDER PAL SINGH and ORS ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Sunil Sethi, Adv versus STATE and ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for State/R-1. Mr. Samrat Nigam, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral).

1. Vide the instant petition petitioner has sought to quash the FIR No. 379/98 registered at PS-Ambedkar Nagar, U/s.

379. Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Under Section 39/44 of Indian Electricity Act and emanating proceedings thereto..

2. Vide order dated 01.12.2011, respondent no.

2. has sought time to verify the payment being made by the petitioner to his client..

3. Mr. Samrat Nigam, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.

2. has verified the factum of the petition and submitted that respondent no.

2. has received the entire amount. Therefore, no issue is pending with the Crl.M.C.3982/2011 Page 1 of 2 petitioner and if the present FIR and emanating proceedings thereto is quashed, respondent no.

2. has no objection..

4. Keeping the statement of ld. Counsel for the Respondent no.

2. into view, I quash the FIR no. 379/98 of PS-Ambedkar Nagar with emanating proceedings thereto..

5. Crl. M.C. 3982/2011 is accordingly allowed on the above terms..

6. Dasti. SURESH KAIT, J DECEMBER 13, 2011 jg Crl.M.C.3982/2011 Page 2 of 2

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial