Court : Delhi
1. C.S. Agarwal, the appellant in LPA No.819 of 2010, had filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No.57 of 2010 invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking appropriate writ for quashing the FIR No.264/2009 dated 23.12.2009 lodged against him and others by the Economic Offences Wing, Crime and Railways, Delhi under Sections 420/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The said writ petition has been dismissed vide orders dated 11.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and against that order LPA No.819 of 2010 has been preferred by C.S. Agarwal. 2. Another accused in the said FIR is D.K. Jain. He has also filed LPA No.825 of 2010 challenging the same judgment, inter alia, on the ground that some of the observations in the said orders are prejudicial to him and therefore, he is also an aggrieved party. The respondents took a primary objection to the maintainability of these LPAs cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1980Delhi99; ILR1980Delhi61
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) Chand Kiran Arcra was married to Kiran Arora (nee Khanna) on 5th December, 1970. They had two children: a son was born on 1st October 1971, and a daughter on 2nd November 1973. On 3rd January 1974, Chand Kiran died. After his death, his wife and two children continued to reside in the house at BF-27, Tagore Garden, New Delhi, along with his parents and other members of the family, as they had done when he was alive. The house stood in the joint names of Chand Kiran and his brother Kanwal Kishore. Besides this, Chand Kiran was also a partner in a firm started by his father Ram Parkash Arora.(2) It appears that a few months after the death of Chand Kiran, his wife began to claim his property for herself' and her children. This antagonised Ram Parkash Arora, and the relations between them became very strained. Ultimately, on 1st June 1974, Kiran Arora left the house with her two children and went to stay with her father in his house at Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. She and he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1120; 20(1981)DLT345
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This order will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 31 of 1981 and Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 91 of 1981. (2) There is a tussle between two groups (party No. I and party No. 2) belonging to the same community, over the management of the Society known as Sarai Khalil Welfare Society and possession of seven shops attached to the Mosque described at Makki Jama Masjid, Inderlok. The first party is headed by Bhaiya Abdul Salam. The second party comprises of 6 persons and is headed by Sabiqur Rehman. The third party, that is, Mohd. Iqbal and 5 others claim to be the tenants of the 7 shops. (The 7th alleged tenant is Bhaiya Abdul Salam). (3) In 1977, the Delhi Development Authority allotted a plot of land in Inderlok to Sarai Khalil Welfare Society for construction of a Mosque. The construction of the Mosque and the shop was completed in October, 1980. Party No. 2 who claim themselves to be the members of the managing committee of the society alleged that applications for all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1974CriLJ1140; ILR1974Delhi295; 1974RLR167
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) The question referred to the full bench for decision is whether the Rent Control Tribunal while dealing with an application under sub-section (4) of section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is a 'Court' for purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a 'Civil Court' within the meaning of section 476 of the said Code. (2) Jaintendra Kumar, appellant filed an application for eviction against the respondent Lakshmi Kant Mukt under section 14 of the Act. While the application was pending, the respondent applied under section 38(4) for transfer of the case (jaintendra Kumar Aggarwal v. Lakshmi Kant Mukt) from Shri D. C. Aggarwal, Controller, Delhi before whom the application was pending to some other Additional Controller for trial. In paragraphs (5) and (7) of the transfer application and the affidavit filed in support of it he made certain allegations casting aspersions on Shri D. C. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1992(1)Crimes748; 46(1992)DLT389A; 1992(22)DRJ203A
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) Shri S.B.S.Tiagi, Assistant Commissioner of Police,. Shri Prem Nath, Inspecter, former Sho Police Station Roshnara, Delhi, and by Asi Mohan Singh have filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal complaint under Sections 302/102-B, Indian Penal Code These three petitions are disposed of by this Judgment. In these petitions, it is also prayed that order of summoning passed by Shri J.M. Malik, Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi, dated 9th May, 1988 and the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 9th June, 1989, (dismissing the criminal revision No.121/88) be set aside. The Complaint was filed before the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari by Smt.Surender Krishnan wife of Late Dr. P.G. Krishnan. The Complainant is a practicing advocate in Delhi and wife of the deceased Dr. P.G. Krishnan, Professor of law in the Delhi University, Delhi.(2) It is stated in the complaint that Late Dr. P.G. Krishnan wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 20(1981)DLT67; 1981RLR576
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This order will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 31 of 1981 and Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 91 of 1981. (2) There is a tussle between two groups (party No. I and party No. 2) belonging to the same community, over the management of the Society known as Sarai Khalil Welfare Society and possession of seven shops attached to the Mosque described at Makki Jama Masjid, Inderlok. The first party is headed by Bhaiya Abdul Salam. The second party comprises of 6 persons and is headed by Sabiqur Rehman. The third party, that is, Mohd. Iqbal and 5 others claim to be the tenants of the 7 shops. (The 7th alleged tenant is Bhaiya Abdul Salam). (3) In 1977, the Delhi Development Authority allotted a plot of land in Inderlok to Sarai Khalil Welfare Society for construction of a Mosque. The construction of the Mosque and the shop was completed in October, 1980. Party No. 2 who claim themselves to be the members of the managing committee of the society alleged that applications for al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1990CriLJ2467; 1990(2)Crimes582; 40(1990)DLT386; I(1990)DMC580; 1990(18)DRJ241; 1990RLR21
ORDER1. These two applications have been moved by the petitioner, one for seeking restoration of the criminal revision No. 187/89 (Cr. M. 298/89) which came to be dismissed on September 22, 1989 and the other (Cr. M. 266/89) seeking condensation of delay in moving the said application. 2. The criminal revision had been brought under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an order dated August 4, 1988, of Shri Shiv Charan, Metropolitan Magistrate, seeking the relief that warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner may be cancelled. The warrants of arrest appear to have been issued for non-payment of arrears of maintenance. On September 22, 1989, the following order was made : 'Present : None of the petitioner. Ms. Usha Bhatia in person. Crl.R. 187/89 and Crl.M. 265 and 266/89 No one has turned up on behalf of the petitioner to pursue the matter. I have gone through the file and find no merit in this petition. Dismissed.' 3. So, it is evident from the aforesaid order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 20(1981)DLT30
M.L. Jain, J. (1) S. C. Gudimani lodged a complaint against six persons before the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on February 21, 1980, under Ss. 120B, 420, 421, 422, 425 and 34 Indian Penal Code. Though there is nothing on record, but it is not denied that the accused were represented by Shri Mathur and Kumari Naresh Parmar, a junior colleague of Shri Dinesh Chand Mathur, and they did so without a Vakalatnama. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated May 15, 1980, summoned only four of the accused including Lt. Col. K. C. Sud. under S. 420 read with S. 34 Indian Penal Code. and dismissed the complaint with regard to offences under Ss. 120B, 421, 422 and 425 IP.C.(2) Against the aforesaid order, the present petition under S. 397 Criminal Procedure Code. has been filed on behalf of Lt. Col. Sud by Shri D. C. Mathur and Kumari Naresh Parmar. The revision petition was admitted by this court on August 20, 1980. When the petition came up for hearing, Shri Balraj Trikha, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1972CriLJ1536; 8(1972)DLT394
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals No. 41 of 1967 and No. 71 of 1967 preferred by the Munici- pal Corporation of Delhi by special leave against the acquittal of Moti Lal son of Bishamber Sahai, Khari Baoli, Delhi. The respon- dent, Moti Lal was prosecuted under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 under two challans for storing khoa for sale which was adulterated. The trial Magistrate convicted him in one case by an order dated 17th October, 1966 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and to undergo impri- sonment till the rising of the Court. In the second case, an applica- 31-R (1972) Ii Delhi Municipal Corporation Of Delhi v.MOri Lal 337 lion was moved by the respondent under section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the effect that since he had been convicted and sentenced in one case for storing for sale khoa on the basis of a sample taken on 22nd October, 1965, a second trial for the same of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 37(1989)DLT241
H.C. Goel, J.(1) -THE petition under Section 397 read with Sec, 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned order dated 242 May 13, 1987 passed by Sh. Bharat Bhusban. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi dismissing the complaint of the complainant Shri Lachhman Singh. Inspector filed by him for the Central Excise & Customs, being an Inspector of that department for the offence under Sec. 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 for the three accused respondents being concerned in an attempt at fraudulent evasion of duty payable on the goods valued at Rs. 15,07.600.00 . The three accused-respondents were summoned by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to appear before him for the aforesaid offences for January 23, 1985. All the three accused put in appearance. The petitioner was exempted from personal appearance and he was allowed to appear through his counsel, Shri Satish Aggarwal Advoca...
Tag this Judgment!