Court : Delhi
1. These two petitions have been filed by petitioner, Mr. Alok Ranjan (Crl. M.C. No.456/2012) and petitioner, Homi Rajvansh (Crl. M.C. No.3325/2015) seeking quashing of the charge-sheet in case FIR No.RC-EOU-1-2007-E0002 dated 10.12.2007 registered under Section 120-B read with Sections 405/408/420/467/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and to quash summoning order dated 07.06.2010 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Delhi in charge-sheet No.03/2010/EOU-1. 2. Since both the petitions arose out of the same charge-sheet, therefore both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The facts emerging from the charge-sheet which are necessary for disposal of these petitions are as under:- (a) Pursuant to complaint dated 15.12.2007, instituted by Alok Ranjan (petitioner in Criminal M.C. No.456/12), the then Managing Director of NAFED, on 19.12.2007, CBI registered a formal RCEOU-1/2007-E0002, under sections 120-B read with sections 405, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997IIIAD(Delhi)780; 1997CriLJ3242; 66(1997)DLT748; 1997(41)DRJ718
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by a private party, namely, People's Union for Civil Liberties (hereinafter referred to as PUCL) against the order of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed in a case which has come to be commonly referred to as St. Kitts conspiracy case, discharging Satish Sharma and R.K. Dhawan two of the accused on the ground that no case was made out against them. Charges were framed against rest of the accused persons. It may be noticed that tins very Pucl had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court for intervention but their request was declined. Instead the Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed an amices curiae and allowed the parties to render assistance to Mr. Anil Dewan, the said amices Curiae. Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of the application for intervention passed the following order: 'WE do not consider it appropriate to permit any intervention in this matter. Shri Anil Dewan has been requested by us to appear as amices ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The petitioner, Commissioner of Police, has challenged the order dated 25th May, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, titled as „H.C. Laxmi Chand v. Government of NCT of Delhi, allowing the original application of the respondent and setting aside the order of punishment dated 28th July, 2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority awarding the forfeiture of 4 years of approved service permanently and also setting aside the Appellate order dated 11th October, 2004 dismissing the appeal of the respondent. 2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that one Lal Bahadur S/o Gorakh Bahadur, a domestic servant of Sh.Shanker Lal Sangwani S/o Sh.Prahlad Rai Sangwani, a resident of Plot No.34, Kanwar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan had committed theft in the house of his owner and had left for Delhi along with some jewelry and other articles. 3. The respondent along with Constable Sheel Bahadur was posted on Picket Duty at Farash Khan, S.N.Marg,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint being CC/32/1/2007 dated 07.02.2007 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I.Act) pending the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini and setting aside the order dated 25th November, 2009 by which the petitioner and his co-accused have been summoned to appear and undergo trial.2. Short issue involved in the instant case is whether or not, Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to try the complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act.3. Briefly stated, facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondent No. 2 A.K.Mittal filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act against the petitioner and others claiming that he is the owner of Flat No.204, B-Wing, Mohana Building, Doordarshan Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Gokuldham, Dindoshi, Goregaon (East), Mumbai. The petitioner and his co-accused persons, on behalf of self and the society, agreed to purchase aforesaid flat from the complainant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001IIAD(Delhi)259; 90(2001)DLT127
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal is against the order dated 27th October, 1998 passed by the Company Judge, on the application of Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter the complainant/RBI) under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act 1956 read with Rule 117 of the Companies(Court) Rule 1959 (for short 'the Rules') granting leave to pursue its criminal complaint for the offences under Sections 58B(5)(aa), 58B(6) read with Section 58C of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934 (for short RBI Act), against JVG Finance Limited (Respondent company) and directing the trial court to consider the objections raised on behalf of the appellant. 2. We have heard Sh. Kapil Sibal and Sh. Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior Advocates, for the appellant and Sh. Rajeev Nayar, learned Senior Advocate for the complainant/RBI and have been taken through record. Learned Counsel for the parties argued that in the appeal maintainability of the criminal complaint against the appellant is questioned thereforee,appeal be fin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 166(2010)DLT129
V.K. Jain, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 817/2009 registered at police station Sultan Puri Under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code. It has been stated in the petition that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and it has been agreed that the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs to respondent No. 2 against all her claims. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs has already been paid to respondent No. 2 and the remaining amount is to be paid after quashing of FIR.2. The FIR in this case was lodged by one Purshotam, alleging therein that deceased Rajnish was working in a factory situated at C-15, Sharma Colony, Budh Vihar where clutch-brakes and allied products are manufactured with a machine run on electricity. The machine was not repaired despite several complaints. In the intervening night of 28th / 29th May, 2005, current flow from the machine hurt his brother, deceased R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi21; 1969CriLJ45; ILR1968Delhi248
S.N. Andley, J. (1) This revision is directed against the order dated 10/5/1966 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1965 by which he made an order for granting a pardon to Sardari Lal Sabharwal, one of the accused in the aforesaid Sessions case. The revision has been filed by the petitioner who was one of the toher co-accused.(2) On 13/9/1959, a complaint was lodged with the Police that the petitioner, along with Durgadas Moondhra and the said Sabharwal had, in or about 1957, entered into a conspiracy as a result of which they forged documents and made unauthorised endorsements on import licenses which had been issued to M/s. E.M. Alloock and Mehta (private) Ltd. Calcutta, of which the said Moondhra was the Finance Director and the said Sabharwal was the Import Assistant. It was alleged that the petitioner had worked as an Assistant Controller of Imports and Exports in the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, up to 4/11/1957 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1990Delhi84
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) In these two petitions filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have sought anticipatory bail in respect of the case registered as F.I.R. No. 198/89 under Sections 498A, 406 etc. of the Median Penal Code. (2) The short question which has arisen is whether Mr. K.K. Sud, counsel who has appeared on behalf of the complainant, should be heard in the matter or not Mr. P. P. Grover, counsel for the petitioners in these matters, has strongly objected to giving any hearing to the counsel for the complainant. (3) It is true that only the State through the Delhi Administration has been joined as respondent in these two petitons and as a matter of fact, a case which the police has investigated on the basis of the F.I.R. No. 198189 only the State is the necessary party. The complainant or the witnesses who might have been examined in support of the case during the investigation are neither necessary nor proper parties. The offences which are com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3379
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order directing framing of charges and the charges framed pursuant thereto, against the Petitioner on 17.05.2007 under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 read with Sections 109 and 120B of Indian Penal Code by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in case RC No. 6(E)/2003/CBI/SPE/EOU.VII, P.S. New Delhi dated 27.10.2003 registered by CBI on the complaint of Shri Anand Kumar, who claims to be the constituted attorney of his son Mukesh Kumar, a resident of Ireland.2. The Charges were framed by the CMM after the charge sheet was filed by the prosecution under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 1.01.2004 after completing the investigation. In the charge sheet, besides the Petitioner, one K. Kadakasham, Deputy Manager of the State Bank of India, Nungambakkam Branch, Che...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4504/2013 & Crl. M.A.16125/2013 Date of decision :27. h November, 2013 % INDERJEET KAUR KALSI Through ..... Petitioner Ms. Jyotika Kalra, Adv. versus NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Through ..... Respondents Mr. Karan Singh, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA1 JUDGMENT Respondent no.2 instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as NI Act) against the petitioner in respect of two dishonoured cheques dated 25th February, 2007 for Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 6 lakhs respectively. At the stage of complainants evidence, respondent no.2 moved an application dated 19th October, 2012 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 311 Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) for permission to examine K.S. Kohli as a witness on the ground that the respondent had given friendly loan of Rs.11 lakhs to the petitioner in the presence of K.S. Kohli at his office. It ...
Tag this Judgment!