Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2581; 46(1992)DLT389; 1992(22)DRJ203
ORDER1. Shri S. B. S. Tiagi, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shri Prem Nath, Inspector, former SHO Police Station Roshnara, Delhi, and ASI Mohan Singh have filed have petitions u/S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal complaint u/Ss. 302/120B, IPC. 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 was staying with his wife and 3 daughters at fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi538
H.R. Khanna, C.J.(1) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent by Shrimati Shakuntala Negi is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge whereby a criminal revision filed by the appellant was dismissed. (2) Shrimati Chandar Kanta Respondent 1s occupying the premises in dispute, situated in Rajouri Garden, new New Delhi, as a tenant of the appellant for running a school called the Angels School. Disputes arose between the parties and Shrimati Chandar Kanta filed a suit for injunction against the appellant. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal the decision of the trial Court was reversed and a decree for injunction was granted in favor of the tenant. On October, 24, 1969, the husband of Chandar Kanta made a report to the police that on the preceding night the appellant Along with some other per- sons had trespassed into the premises in dispute by breaking open the locks and had removed some articles. The police registered a case under Section 448, In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1983(1)Crimes248; 1983(4)DRJ224; 1983RLR65
Leila Seth, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for quashing the proceedings instituted against the petitioner in case No. 1456-C of 1979 pending in the court of Mr. M.L. Mehta, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The matter is an offshoot of the volatile 'foreigners issue in Assam.2. The petitioner is an officer of the Indian Police Service. When the petition was filed, he was the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Nowgong, Assam. However, at the relevant time he was the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Gauhati, Assam.3. On 31st December, 1979, Parthajoy Das, respondent No. 1 filed a complaint in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Barpeta, Assam. The complainant pertained to the action taken in the early hours of 10th December, 1979 by the petitioner and respondents 3, 4, and 5 ; when respondent No. 1 and a crowd of 1500 to 2)00 persons were trying to prevent Begum Abida Ahmed from filing her nomination papers as a Lok Sabha candid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi202; 1968CriLJ1162; 5(1969)DLT194
ORDER(1) The facts in this Criminal Revision which has been referred to this Court by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, are that Mst. Munni Begum, who will hereafter be referred to as the petitioner, is the widow of Pir Wazir Ali Shah Warsi. He died in Delhi on 15-4-1967 and was buried by the petitioner in a room of her house No. 773, Phatak Karoli, Frash Khana, Delhi. Inasmuch as the said house had nto been set apart for making graves for burial of dead persons, she was called upon to remove the nuisance by service of ntoice under Section 398 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, but she failed to do so. A complaint was thereafter lodged against her by the Delhi Municipal Corporation for offences under Section 397(1)(d) , 398 and 461 of the Delhi Municipal; Corporation Act, 1957, in the Court of a Magistrate who issued summons for the appearance of the petitioner. Before she appeared in Court an application was moved on her behalf under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Proce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 7(1971)DLT141
M.R. Ansari, J. 1. The petitioner herein, Shri K. R. Bhagat filed a complaint before the Municipal Magistrate, Delhi, against the respond at herein under Section 473 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. 1957 thereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant on 22nd March, 196) and issued summons for the appearance of the respondent. The respondent appeared before the learned Magistrate and thereafter the petitioner and the respondent Were required to file affidavits in support of their respective cases instead of adducing oral evidence of witnesses. At this stage the learned Magistrate was transferred and was succeeded by another Magistrate. The latter was of the view that the complaint filed by the petitioner was not enquired into in the manner provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, in as much as the procedure prescribed under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code was not followed. He thereforee passed an order dated 1st Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi698; 1973RLR688
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The question referred to this Division Bench is whether the Competent authority holding an inquiry under sub-section (3) of section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance Act, 1956 is a 'court' within the meaning of section 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The question has an importance wider than the present case. For, the Competent authority acting under section 19(3) of the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act is a quasi-judicial authority. With the march of the statute law and the welfare state in India a large number of administrative authorities have been functioning in a quasi-judicial manner. They are, thereforee, subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and of the Supreme Court under Article 32 as also to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136. The word 'court' is itself used either in a narrow sense of a civil, criminal or a revenu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. h December, 2014 Date of Decision:06. h February, 2015 % + CRL.A.910/2008 VIKAS YADAV Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Adv. with Mr.Amit Kala,Adv. versus STATE OF UP Through : + ..... Respondent Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhijeet, Mr. Vijay Pal Singh and Mr. Andleeb Naqvi, Advs. for complainant. CRL.A.741/2008 VISHAL YADAV Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Vinay Arora, Advs. versus STATE GOVT. OF UP ....Respondents Through : Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhijeet, Mr. Vijay Pal Singh and Mr. Andleeb Naqvi, Advs. for complainant. Crl.A.Nos.910, 741, 958/2008, Crl.Rev.P.No.369/2008, Crl.A.Nos.1322/2011 & 145/2012 pg. 1 + CRL.A.958/2008 STATE Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. h December, 2014 Date of Decision:06. h February, 2015 % + CRL.A.910/2008 VIKAS YADAV Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Adv. with Mr.Amit Kala,Adv. versus STATE OF UP Through : + ..... Respondent Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhijeet, Mr. Vijay Pal Singh and Mr. Andleeb Naqvi, Advs. for complainant. CRL.A.741/2008 VISHAL YADAV Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Vinay Arora, Advs. versus STATE GOVT. OF UP ....Respondents Through : Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhijeet, Mr. Vijay Pal Singh and Mr. Andleeb Naqvi, Advs. for complainant. Crl.A.Nos.910, 741, 958/2008, Crl.Rev.P.No.369/2008, Crl.A.Nos.1322/2011 & 145/2012 pg. 1 + CRL.A.958/2008 STATE Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. h December, 2014 Date of Decision:06. h February, 2015 % + CRL.A.910/2008 VIKAS YADAV Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Adv. with Mr.Amit Kala,Adv. versus STATE OF UP Through : + ..... Respondent Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhijeet, Mr. Vijay Pal Singh and Mr. Andleeb Naqvi, Advs. for complainant. CRL.A.741/2008 VISHAL YADAV Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Vinay Arora, Advs. versus STATE GOVT. OF UP ....Respondents Through : Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhijeet, Mr. Vijay Pal Singh and Mr. Andleeb Naqvi, Advs. for complainant. Crl.A.Nos.910, 741, 958/2008, Crl.Rev.P.No.369/2008, Crl.A.Nos.1322/2011 & 145/2012 pg. 1 + CRL.A.958/2008 STATE Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. h December, 2014 Date of Decision:06. h February, 2015 % + CRL.A.910/2008 VIKAS YADAV Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Adv. with Mr.Amit Kala,Adv. versus STATE OF UP Through : + ..... Respondent Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhijeet, Mr. Vijay Pal Singh and Mr. Andleeb Naqvi, Advs. for complainant. CRL.A.741/2008 VISHAL YADAV Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Vinay Arora, Advs. versus STATE GOVT. OF UP ....Respondents Through : Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhijeet, Mr. Vijay Pal Singh and Mr. Andleeb Naqvi, Advs. for complainant. Crl.A.Nos.910, 741, 958/2008, Crl.Rev.P.No.369/2008, Crl.A.Nos.1322/2011 & 145/2012 pg. 1 + CRL.A.958/2008 STATE Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for ...
Tag this Judgment!