Delhi Court April 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Madan Mohan Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
1. By the present petition, the Petitioner challenges order dated 15th November, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing and framing of the charge under Sections 498A/306 IPC against the Petitioner herein. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that there is no evidence against the Petitioner for abetting the suicide of his wife. The marriage between the parties was performed on 23rd April, 1994. The wife of the Petitioner fell down on 10th July, 2002 and could not come out of the coma. She finally succumbed to the injuries on 17th July, 2002. A complaint by Seeta Sharma, mother of the deceased was filed on 16th July, 2002 alleging that the Petitioner used to taunt her daughter Vandana Sharma for bringing less dowry and used to create mental tension for her. The Petitioner used to harass and demanded her to bring more dowry and used to bring other girls in the house. Initially, a complaint was lodged at P.S. R.K. Puram, however later the parties entered i...
Amol Tanaji Patil Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Vide instant petition, the petitioner has sought to set aside the impugned order dated 09.12.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby charge has been framed against petitioner as under:- “That during the intervening period from 27.12.2009 till the date of arrest, you both entered into criminal conspiracy under Section 120B, 201 for the offences under Section 411 and 394 relating to the Sections 302/397 IPC and that you both thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120B 201 for the offences 411 and 394 relating to the Sections 302, 307 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the facts of the case in brief are that on 27.12.2009 at about 05:00PM, one Roshan Lal, jeweller of Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi was going towards Nangloi from Najafgarh, in his Maruti Swift car alongwith his servant Dhananjay Kumar. When they reached near Baprola School, the car was stoppe...
Krishna Dhawan Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. The instant petition is being filed to assail the impugned order dated 25.01.2010, whereby the ld. MM dismissed an application filed by the petitioner for her maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. Also challenged the order dated 22.11.2010, passed by ld. Sessions Judge, whereby he dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner on being aggrieved against the order dated 25.01.2010 mentioned above. 3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that courts below came to the conclusion that against the cruelty being committed by the respondent, no complaints were ever made by the petitioner. And she failed to prove her beatings of several time, as no medical evidence could be produced. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner is not an earning member and unable to maintain herself, has been ignored by the two courts below. Due to minor contradictions in her cross-examination, the trial court dismissed her application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. 5. Both the Courts below hav...
H.D. Gumber Vs. Ashok Sachdeva
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J: 1. This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of criminal complaint being CC No. 10261/2003 and the summoning orders dated 28.7.2003, 22.11.2003, 01.04.2004, 29.10.2004, 01.06.2005, 14.9.2005, 03.12.2008, 09.04.2010, 19.05.2010, 20.07.2010, 13.08.2010 and order dated 27.01.2011, whereby notice under Section 251 CrPC was framed against the petitioner by the learned M.M. in above mentioned complaint case filed by the respondent under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the „N.I.Act‟). 2. The complaint case was registered at the instance of the respondent wherein it was alleged that the petitioner/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25000/- at 2.5% interest in August, 2002 from the respondent/complainant as a friendly loan. It was alleged that a cheque bearing No. 052104 dated 23.11.2002 for the above mentioned amount drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Rohtak was issued by the petitioner in favour ...
R.K. Chandolia Vs. Cbi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J: 1. The present petition challenges the order of the Ld. Special Judge dated 12.01.2012, disallowing certain questions to be put to the prosecution witness PW 12 , during cross-examination. 2. The facts necessitating the disposal of the present petition are that, the charge sheet was filed against petitioner on 02.04.2011. Thereafter the Ld. Special Judge was pleased to frame charges against the petitioner vide order dated 22.10.2011 under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) PC Act r/w Section 120-B IPC, Section 120-B r/w 409/420/468/471 IPC, Section 7 or Section 11 r/w Section 12 PC Act. Thereafter, the prosecution witnesses were summoned for examination. During the cross-examination of PW 12 Tarun Das, certain questions asked by the petitioner’s counsel were disallowed on the premise of these being “irrelevant”. The two questions which were disallowed by the Special Judge were, “Do you have a mobile phone” and “Do you pay service tax o...
C.K. Jaffer Sharief Vs. the State (Through Cbi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J: 1. The present writ petition assails the order dated 27.01.2010 of the Ld. Special Judge whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking discharge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’) on the ground of lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. 2. The allegations against the petitioner are that during the year 1995, while functioning as the Union Railways Minister, he dishonestly arranged foreign visits of four officials besides the officials allowed by the Government, for his personal use, through Public Sector Undertaking, namely IRCON and RITES, after temporarily placing their services with these undertaking. It is alleged that the petitioner dishonestly made M.D’s of RITES and IRCON to approve the journey of B.N. Nagesh, the then Additional P.S. to the Railway Minister, Sh. S.M. Masthan and Sh. V. Murlidharn, both stenos in the Railway Minister Cell to go to London with him, after placing their services ...
Mantec Consultant Pvt. Ltd Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
1. By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 28th July, 2010 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoning the Petitioner company for offence under Section 22 (A) of Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.W. Act’) and quashing of the criminal complaint No. 15/10/MW titled as MW vs. Mantec Consultant Pvt. Ltd. filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the impugned order summoning the Petitioner company is bad in law. It is contended that provisions of Minimum Wages Act are not applicable to the Petitioner Company. The Petitioner Company is neither a scheduled employment nor governed by Delhi Shops and Establishment Act. The company is incorporated under the companies Act and governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Furthermore the Petitioner is a consultancy company having no factory but a call centre registered under STPI. Learned counsel further st...
Kanshi Ram Bansal Vs. Suman Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J 1. This is a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. assailing order dated 03.22.2011 of ASJ whereby the revision petition filed by the respondent /accused herein against the order dated 11.07.2011 under section 243(2) Cr. P.C. of the MM was allowed. 2. The petitioner/complainant had filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’) in the Court of MM. In the said complaint the petitioner had led evidence and the statement of the accused/respondent under section 313 Cr. P.C. was also recorded. The case was at the stage of defence evidence of the respondent/accused. An application was filed by the accused under section 243(2) Cr. P.C. for examination of handwriting expert in order to prove that the cheque in question, which formed the basis of the said complaint, was neither signed by her nor had impression of her palm and fingers. The MM dismissed the said application vide his order dated 11.07.2011 observing that the accu...
State, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, New Delhi Vs ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J: 1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the State under Section 397 Cr. P.C. read with Section 482 Cr. P.C., assailing the impugned order dated 14.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he has discharged the accused persons/respondents of the offences under Section 304-B/34 IPC. 2. An FIR no. 123/2008 under Section 498-A,304-B was registered on 19.04.2008 at P.S. Kalyanpuri at the instance of Raghubar Dutt (complainant), who complained that the marriage of his daughter Deepa was solemnized with Suraj @Anand (respondent no.2 ) on 06.05.2006 according to Hindu rites . He further stated that, one week before marriage, the father of the groom i.e. Puran Chand (respondent no.1) came to his house along with his daughter Savitri (respondent no.3) and demanded fridge, T.V., almirah, ring and nose pin. As the wedding cards were already distributed, the complainant was constrained to arrange for these items, by going beyond his limited mea...
Dec Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Hcl Infosystems Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J: 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order dated 05.06.2009 passed by ld. M.M. and the consequential proceedings arising thereof in the Complaint Case no. 1478/3/09 under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as “Act”). 2. The facts of the case in brief are that an institute named Vidya Bikash Educational Trust placed an order of 66 HCL Desktop Computers with the respondent company having its registered office at Nehru Place, New Delhi through the petitioner company situated at Orissa. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioners issued two cheques bearing no. 235609 and 235610 for Rs. 4,00,000/-as security against the supply of the abovementioned desktops. On presentation of the said cheques by the respondent to its banker, they were returned unpaid with the remarks “funds insufficient” which led to the filing of the complaint case by the respondents,...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »