Court : Delhi
Reported in : 159(2009)DLT636
S. Muralidhar J. 1. These four Criminal Revision Petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) are directed against order on charge dated 8th April, 2008 and an order dated 16th April, 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) framing charges against each of the petitioners, inter alia, for the offences under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7, 8, 13(2), 13(1) (d) PCA and for some of the accused for the substantive offence under Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) PCA. Background of the Lift Case2. The present batch of four revision petitions arise from a common charge sheet filed by the CBI in RC No. 25(A)/2003-CBI/ACB/New Delhi. This concerns the unauthorised construction of a lift at a commercial complex at Mahavira Towers, IIIrd Floor, Paschim Vihar and is hereafter referr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(102)DRJ216
S. Muralidhar, J.1. These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') challenge two Kalandaras arising out of the same set of events. The first is titled State v. Asha Pant And Anr. and the other is titled State v. Kanwal Chaudhri and Anr. both pending in the court of Special Executive Magistrate ('SEM'), New Delhi and the notices issued to the petitioners in each of the petitions under Sections 107 and 111 CrPC.2. The events leading to the filing of the present case, as stated in the petition Crl.M.C. No. 2077 of 2006, is that the property at 10A Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (hereinafter 'the property') was owned by Mrs. Kanwal Chaudhri, the Petitioner No. 1 in Crl. M.C. 2416-17 of 2006. Mr. Ranjan Pant , the husband of Mrs. Asha Pant, the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 2077 of 2006, purchased a portion of the said property from Mrs. Kanwal Chaudhri on 8th July, 2002. It is stated that Mrs. Asha Pant and her husband stay out of Delhi most of the time as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 78(1999)DLT749; 1(1999)DMC666
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. By this petition u/Sec. 482, Cr.PC the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 332/93 Under Sections 498-A/406/34, IPC at PS Jahangir Puri, Delhi. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the petition are as under: Praveen Kaur filed a complaint on 14.11.1993 at P.S. Jahangir Puri. She alleged in the complaint that she was married on 7th May, 1989 to late Shri Bhupinder Singh at Chattiwind, Amritsar. Dowry was given according to status of her parents. But her in-laws were not satisfied and they demanded cash, jewellery and colour TV. These demands could not be met. Thereupon, her father-in-law Pritam Singh and brothers-in-law Ravinder Singh and Karamjeet Singh started abusing, beating and torturing her. She and her husband used to tolerate it helplessly. On 7th May, 1990, a child Paramveer Singh @ Honey was born. Thereafter her father-in-law and brothers-in-law started demanding more dowry and used to harass her. On 15th October, 1990, her husb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi877
S. Rangaranjan, J. (1) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (SHRI Joginder NASH), has by his order dated 4th Agust, 1972. made a recommendation to this court that the order of the learned S.D.M. (Shri A.S. Awasthi). passed in proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code ., be quashed in the following circumstances. (2) I have heard shri R.D. Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner (Rajinder Singh), Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent (Abdul Majid) and Shri H.R. Bhardwaj for the State, This case highlights the kind of difficulty that courts face when dealing with certain problems that arise in crowded it owns and cities and the need for a kind of interpretation wherever possible of existing laws to meet with such problems. (3) According to Rajinder Singh he was tenant of a portion of shop No. G-55. Karbala, New Delhi, which consisted of only one room with a single entrance where he used to keep the clothes in which he traded outside the shop, the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 17(1980)DLT404; ILR1979Delhi571
V.D. Misra, J.(1) Kuljeet Singh @ Ranga and Jasbir- Singh @ Billa have been convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to death for having committed the murder of Gee'a and Sanjay. Both of them have also been convicted under sections 365/363 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code; under sections 366/363 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and under section 376 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. Each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years under the first count as well as the second, and to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under the third count. Jasbir Singh @ Billa has also been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Ranga and Billa have filed separate appeals against their convictions and sentences. The trial court has also submitted the proceedings to the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1982CriLJ2779; 20(1981)DLT302; ILR1981Delhi680
ORDER1. S. C. Gudimani lodged a complaint against six persons before the Metropolitan Magistrate. New Delhi, on February 21, 1980 under Sections 120B, 420, 421, 422, 425 and 34 I.P.C. 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 Section 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and dismissed the complaint with regard to offences under Sections 120B, 421, 422 and 425 I.P.C. 2. Against the aforesaid order, the present petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 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, the learned Advocate for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1974CriLJ1451; ILR1974Delhi896
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) This appeal is against an order dated October 4, 1972 of a learned Single Judge of this Court. On an application submitted on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. V. D. Misra J.. held against Hanuman Prasad Ganeriwala that offences 'under sections 182, 196, 199, 200, 209, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, as referred to in section 195, sub-section (1), clauses (b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure appear to have been committed in or in relation to the proceedings of this Court' and 'that it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into these offences, and complaint be made to a Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter'. (2) For appreciating the contentions which have been raised in the appeal it is necessary to state certain facts. A property at No. 1 Raj Narain Road, Delhi, on an area of approximately 3,700 square yards, was purchased by the Mercantile Bank...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IVAD(Delhi)197; 1998(46)DRJ537
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J:1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the criminal complaint No. 289/1 of 1996 pending before Shri V.K. Maheshwari, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi. 2. Shri Gauri Shankar Mittal and the two petitioners, namely, Shri O.P. Chirania and Shri Binod Kumar Chirania, are the partners of M/s. Deep Mayank and Associates, respondent No.3 (for short 'the firm') having its branch offices in New Delhi and Patna and Head Office at Calcutta. The firm is doing a lottery business. In 1992 the State of Haryana was running seven weekly lotteries namely, Jai Durga, Mahadev, Hari Om, Jai Vishnu, Shri Ganesh, Maha Laxmi and Mahabali. On June 29, 1992, the Govt. of Haryana, represented by the Director of Haryana State Lotteries, Chandigarh, and M/s. Deep Mayank and Associates entered into an agreement whereby the former constituted the latter as its main stockists of lottery tickets of the above said weekly lotterie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IVAD(Delhi)701; 1998(3)Crimes541; 75(1998)DLT86; 1999(48)DRJ660; 1998RLR492
ORDERA.K. Srivastava, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of order dated dated 13.1.1998 passed in case FIR No. 925/97 under Section 366 IPC, P.S.Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi by Smt. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, Mahila Court.2. By the impugned order one Shiv Kumari, daughter of the petitioner, has been directed to be released to her husband (respondent No.2) on furnishing a Super-digamma in the sum of rupees twenty five thousand with the condition that he will produce the prosecutrix as and when directed by the court.3. The petitioner had lodged the aforesaid FIR against respondent No.2 for having kidnapped Shiv Kumari which was registered under Section 366 IPC. On this FIR being registered, respondent No.2 was arrested and Shiv Kumari, the prosecutrix, was brought before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate. She was sent to Nari Niketan and respondent No.2 was released on bail by the court of Sessions. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(103)DRJ349
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') challenges an order dated 19th April 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), Delhi dismissing an application filed by the Petitioner, who is an accused facing trial in FIR No. 42 of 2006 under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 ('OSA') and 409/201/120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') registered at Police Station Special Cell, for the supply of certain documents relied upon by the Respondent State. 2. A significant question of law that arises in this matter concerning the right of an accused facing trial under the OSA to be provided with the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution which are in digital form in pen drives and hard discs. The case of the prosecution is that under Section 14 OSA even documents gathered during investigation can, if they are classified or secret, be withheld from the accused although they are relied ...
Tag this Judgment!