Court : Delhi
Reported in : 137(2007)DLT411; I(2007)DMC483; 2007(94)DRJ487
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J 1. This writ petition is directed against the letter dated 03.07.2006 issued by a member of the Delhi Commission for Women to the Accounts Officer, MTNL, Telephone Exchange, 4th Floor Hari Nagar, New Delhi. The subject of the letter is interim maintenance. It appears that a complaint was filed with the Delhi Commission for Women by the respondent No. 3, who is the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner is an employee of MTNL. As per the respondent No. 3's case, she and her two minor children are living along with her aged mother and her husband (the petitioner) was not maintaining her for the last five years. On the basis of this submission, the Commission, by virtue of the impugned letter made the following instruction:The Commission has granted Smt. Sonia interim maintenance of Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month, considering her miserable condition till such time she gets an order from the Court. This amount be deducted from Sh. Bhupinder Singh's sal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 131(2006)DLT376
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this petition under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks transfer of case bearing RC No. 3/83 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, popularly known as 'Sikand Murder Case' from the court of Ms.Mamta Sehgal, Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi to the court of Sh.S.P. Garg, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.2. Shorn of details the facts are as follows. The petitioner Lt.Col.S.J. Chaudhri is the main accused in the 'Sikand Murder Case', who is alleged to have murdered one Mr.Krishan Sikand on 2.10.82 in his flat at 98, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi by way of a parcel bomb resulting in the registration of a case against him under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act bearing case No. RC-3/83. The said case was pending in the court of Ms.Mamta Sehgal, Additional Sessions Judge posted at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and remained pending in her co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1991CriLJ1931; 44(1991)DLT468; 1991RLR269
P.N. Nag, J. (1) This order will dispose of three C.M.(M) Nos. 270 to 272 of 1989 as the impugned order in all the three petitions is common. (2) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 6th May, 1989 whereby on the basis of the findings given by the trial Court on the application filed by respondent No. I under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Court has set aside the judgment and decree delivered in. Suit No. 34/86. ) (3) In Suit No. 34/86 a degree was passed on 1st April, 1986 by Shri P R Thakur, Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby a decree for declaration was passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the effect that Khasra No. 227 I/I 342/624 in village Chandrawali alias Shahdara Delhi be read as Khasra No. 2941/122 which actually corresponds to municipal No. 573 G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 in the sale deed registered at document No. 57 in Addl. Boo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(98)DRJ404
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By above captioned petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner is seeking recall of 2 orders of even date i.e. 6.8.2005 passed by the Court of Special Judge, NDPS, Delhi.2. On 20.11.1987 Drug Enforcement Administration Officials, USA seized narcotic drugs from 2 Indians and informed Narcotics Control Bureau about the same. On 22.6.1988 NCB, Delhi filed a complaint against 6 persons including petitioner under Section 21, 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.3. Facts pertaining to Crl.M.C. 4872/2005 are that on 18.5.2005 an application was moved by the petitioner seeking permission to inspect the file brought by Devender Dutt, PW-6. The file was sought for cross-examining said witness.4. Vide impugned order dated 6.8.05, application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Special Judge5. It is not in dispute that file in question relates to investigation conducted by the official of the respondent NCB in connection with commission of the all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001IIIAD(Delhi)805; 2001CriLJ2276; 90(2001)DLT484; 2001(58)DRJ168
ORDERR.C.Chopra, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 13.2.1998 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on the basis of which he was summoned in a complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only)2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are that the respondent filed a complaint under section 138 of the Act against accused No.1 M/s Ganga Automobiles Limited and accused No.2 Ashwani Suri, a Director of the said Company. The complainant instead of mentioning the name of the petitioner or any other Director, as accused in the complaint mentioned at Sr. No.3 'other Directors M/S Ganga Automobiles Services Ltd., S-11, Green Park Extension, New Delhi'. In the entire complaint neither the petitioner was named nor any allegation was made that he was also liable to be prosecuted by virtue of Section 142 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2002]112CompCas121(Delhi); [2002]257ITR272(Delhi)
K.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the prayers made are as under :'(a) Pass ad interim ex parte orders staying the operation of the orders passed by Sh. J.P.S. Malik, ACMM, Tis Hazari, in Complaint No. 429 of 1990 bearing title--Amit Jain, Asstt. CIT v. Ocean Electronics Pvt. Ltd--issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner as well as proceedings under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vide orders dated January 17, 2001, May 1, 2001 and July 11, 2001, and stay the arrest of the petitioner till the final disposal of this petition. (b) Recall the orders dated August 22, 2000, issuing non-bailable warrants and orders dated January 17, 2001, May 1, 2001 and July 11, 2001, issuing process under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (c) Quash the complaint and proceedings against the petitioner of Complaint No. 429 of 1990 bearing title--Amit Jain, Asstt. CIT v. Ocean Electronics Pvt....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1985(9)DRJ99
J.D. Jain, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against order dated 7th June 1984 of an Additional Sessions Judge declining permission to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of the petitioners. (2) The facts giving rise to the present petition in brief are that S/Shri Surinder Singh, Raghbir Singh, Balbir Singh and Mohinder Singh, who are real brothers, are running a guest house called 'Dashmesh Guest House' at Chowk Sang Tarashan, Delhi. Hari Parshad-petitioner No. 4, his sons 0m Parkash-Petitioner No. 1 and Satish Kumar-petitioner No. 3 have a shop near by the said Guest House where they sell milk, curd and fruit juices etc. On 19th June 1980, Surinder Singh lodged a report (FIR No. 877/80 under Section 307/324/34 IPC) against all the four petitioners with Paharganj police to the effect that seven or eight days prior to that date Hari Parshad etc-. were having a Jagran (i.e. recitation of devotional songs etc. night to propitiate the Goddess) at Chowk Sang Tara...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(104)DRJ54
Manmohan, J.1. The Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of summoning order dated 31st August, 2007 as well as for quashing of criminal complaint being CC No. 941/2007 hereinafter referred to as the 'said complaint'.2. Briefly stated, the material facts of this case are that the Respondent No. 2 has filed the said complaint against the Petitioner for alleged violation of Section 42 of the Companies Act 1956. The said section renders any allotment or transfer of shares by a company to its subsidiary as void ab initio.3. Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner states that the said complaint is grossly barred by limitation as it has been instituted much beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C. He contends that the trial court while taking cognizance of the alleged offence and issuing the summoning order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 42(1990)DLT220; 1990(19)DRJ139
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been moved by B.K. Chakravarty. Air Customs Officer, seeking quashment of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated March 31, 1990, by which she had directed release of the respondent on bail on finishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000.00 (five lakhs only) with two sureties in the like amount with the direction that one of the sureties would be local.and that the petitioner shall not leave jurisdiction of the court without permission and he shall surrender his passport, if not already done. (2) The respondent had moved a petition under Section 482 read with Sections 401 & 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking modification of the said order granting bail playing that the bail amount as well as the number of sureties be reduced. Vide order dated May 22, 1990, this Court had passed he following order : 'Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I direct that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002CriLJ819; 95(2002)DLT468; 2002(61)DRJ339
Usha Mehra, J. 1. A very interesting point has been raised in this petition as to whether the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code would apply to an investigation carried out under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (called the FERA). Mr. K.K. Sud, Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2 contended that FERa is a complete Code in itself, thereforee, for the purposes of investigation the aid of the provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure cannot be put in service. To support his contention be placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajorja : 1998CriLJ841 . In that case High Court had directed the investigation Agency not to arrest the accused and that the interrogations be conducted on the appointed dates, times and also fixed the duration thereof. The Apex Court while setting aside those directions observed that such kind of supervision on the enquiry or investigation under a statute is un...
Tag this Judgment!