Court : Delhi
Reported in : 31(1987)DLT189
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The petitioner, S. Mohinder Singh Saluja is the owner/landlord of the property no. 6/6 W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. M/s Vanson Shoes, a registered partnership firm, to start with, was the tenant of the part of the ground floor of the said premises but in the year 1971, they became the tenant of the whole of the ground floor, including the mezzanine floor at a consolidated rent of Rs 435.00 per mensem Subsequently the rent was increased to Rs. 515.00 including the water charges. The rent has since been paid to the landlord till the tiling of the present complaint u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) The case set up by the tenant in brief is that at the time of the creation of the tenancy, it was agreed between the parties that the respondent landlord will carry out the white wash and minor repairs of the tenancy premises. In spite of the repealed requests and reminders, the landlord failed to get the premises in good shape as per the terms of the rent note....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1971CriLJ1378
ORDERPritam Singh Safeer, J.1. This a petition preferred Under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was on the 17th of March 1971, that I disposed of Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 136 of 1970.2. The Explanationn is contained in this petition as to in which circumstances Shri R.C. Chopra, counsel for the respondent could not be present on that date. The ultimate prayer is that the ex parte order dated the 17th of March, 1971, quashing the proceedings initiated by the complaint dated the 11th of May, 1970, against the petitioners in the aforementioned main petition be set aside.3. Mr. N. S. Sistani, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 136 of 1970, who is the counsel for the respondents in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 264 of 1971, has raised a preliminary objection that the relief sought by the present applicants cannot be granted. His contention is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside an or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1979CriLJ1474; ILR1979Delhi58
V.D. Misra, J.(1) Whether clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is ultra virus of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India Is the question raised in this writ petition.(2) Shorn of all unnecessary details the facts in brief are that the petitioner is a public servant. He started his career as clerk some where in 1940. (3) After a break of one year from June 15, 1948 to July 15, 1949 he rejoined Government service as a Statistician with the Ministry of Rehabilitation. After working in various capacities in different departments of the Government of India, he was working as Deputy Commissioner in the Ministry of Agriculture when a case under section 5(1)(e) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered against him. After completing the investigation a chargesheet was submitted on July 21, 1977 in the court of Special Judge. It is alleged that the petitioner has been found to be in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 4,8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1986]60CompCas603(Delhi); 1987(11)ECC124; 1987(30)ELT390(Del)
ORDER1. These petitions Cr. M(M) 205/83, Cr. M(M) 251/83 with Cr. 504/83 and Cr. M(M) 622/83 by K. T. Advani and Cr. M(M) 1054/83 Cr. 2056/83 Cr. M. 2113/ 83 and Cr. M. 2120/83 by Rajinder Singh Grover, under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, raised common questions of considerable importance, and of some difficulty, with regard to the rights, privileges and of procedural safeguards for a person, who has been granted bail in a case involving violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, pending investigation/ enquiry by the authorities under the Act into his conduct, and dealings, even through a formal complaint of the offence, if at all, is still to be filed. The proceedings against these two persons are distinct and independent but the petitions are being dealt with by a common order as the controversies are common. 2. Both the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after he was satisfied that, according to the authorities under th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : III(2008)BC94; 149(2008)DLT185
ORDERS. Muralidhar, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 214 of 2002 (Bumpy Udyog v. Signaps) pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (ASJ) and an order dated 28th May, 2003 passed by the learned ASJ dismissing the application for recalling of the summoning order dated 15th September, 2000 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (MM).2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Petitioners fairly states that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal 113(2004) DLT 356 he cannot really challenge the impugned order of the learned ASJ declining to recall the summoning order and that the only remedy available to the accused is to challenge the summoning order by way of the present petition under Section 482 CrPC. He accordingly confines his arguments in the present case to questioning the summoni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Branch ('DCP') is aggrieved by an order dated 25th September 2009 passed by the Central Information Commission ('CIC') directing the Petitioner DCP to provide to the Respondent copies of the documents sought by him. These documents include certified copies of D.D. entry of arrest of the Respondent and various other documents relating to the investigation of the case, under FIR No. 52 of 2003. The CIC found the denial of the information by the Petitioner by taking recourse of Section 8 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act') to be untenable. It was held that none of the clauses under Section 8 (1) covered subjudice matters and therefore, the information could not be denied.2. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Pawan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, and the Respondent who appears in person.3. Mr. Pawan Sharma referred to Section 172 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') and su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003VIIAD(Delhi)1; 107(2003)DLT385; 2003(71)DRJ178; 2003(3)JCC1669
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. PREFACE 1. Every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. The journey, in the present case, has been navigated by the Designated Judge of the Special Court constituted under Section 23 of the Prevention of Terrorists Activities Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as POTA). In the Murder Reference and the connected appeals arising out of the judgment dated 16.12.2002, we are called upon to decide the legality and validity of the trial as also the sustainability of the judgment pronounced by the Designated Judge of the Special Court, POTA. By the impugned judgment, the learned Designated Judge has held that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charge of conspiracy against accused Nos. 1 to 3, for having entered into a conspiracy with the 5 slain terrorists who had attacked Parliament House on 13.12.2001 along with Mohd. Masood Azhar, Gazi Baba @ Abu Zehadi @ Abu Seqlain and Tariq Ahmed, all Pakistani nationals (declared as pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1995CriLJ2866; 1995(1)Crimes453; 1995(32)DRJ59
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, against the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dated 12th October, 1993. The trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and it has been observed that there is no force in the contention that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case. It is further observed that all offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and thus the Court of Magistrate was competent to try the case. It is further mentioned in the order that the proceedings in this case had not become void at any stage and no fundamental rights of the petitioner were violated at any stage. It is also mentioned that the application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. 2. Brief facts necessary to decide this petition are recapitulated. The petitioner along with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1984CriLJ1667; 1984(2)Crimes449; ILR1984Delhi911
H.L. Anand, J.(1) By this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Vijay Khanna, petitioner, challenges proceedings in complaint case No. 311-0, filed by Jumbo Electronics Co. Ltd., respondent No. 1 herein, for alleged offences under Sections 420/465/468 and 471 Indian Penal Code. against the petitioner, and pending in the Court below, as well as the order made by the Court below, on June 4, 1983. by which the court issued the process against the petitioner. By the said order the Court also directed that an intimation be sent about the pendency of the case to the Passport Officer concerned, informing the said officer that the presence of the petitioner was required in the Court in connection with the case.(2) According to the complaint, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-I to the petition, Jumbo Electronics Co. Ltd., the respondent carries on business in London in Video Cassettes and other electronics goods, and Pranab Kumar Banerjee, though whom the complaint is filed,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has approached this Court to seek directions to direct the police to register an FIR and investigate the case expeditiously. 2. The present petition was filed by the petitioner on 3.11.2008 and the same was taken up by this Court on 5.11.2008 in the presence of the State Prosecutor. The case in hand depicts the sordid, despotic and nepotic functioning of the Delhi Police who in a most brazen, blatant and contemptuous manner have flouted and defied not only the mandate of the law as envisaged under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., but also various directions given by the Honble Apex Court and the High Court pronouncing that once any information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence is brought before the police officer of a police station, then the concerned police officer is bound to register an FIR. 3. Before I proceed to discuss the legal position and the approach of the concerned po...
Tag this Judgment!