Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-31-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. September, 2018 Pronounced on:31. October, 2018 + W.P.(C) 6859/2018 KULAMANI BISWAL ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anish Gupta and Mr. Gaurav Wadhwa, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv. for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR Mr. Puneet Taneja, Adv. and Mr. Rajesh Mahendra, Adv. for R-2 JUDGMENT This writ petition, filed by Kulamani Biswal, seeks quashing of 1. three orders, viz. (i) order dated 14th December, 2017, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension, by invoking Rule 20(1)(c) of the NTPC (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the CDA Rules), (ii) order dated 18th May, 2018, communicating the decision of the competent authority in the Ministry of Power (Respondent No.1), rejecting the representations, dated 8th March, 2018, 28th March, 2018 and 17th April, 2018, submitted by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-19-2018
..... section 176, code of criminal procedure, by the nearest magistrate duly authorized to hold inquest. (c) in the case of a death by violence occurring within the walls of a military prison or civil jail the police shall not make an investigation into the cases of death when an inquest has been held by a competent magistrate. (d) upon receipt of information of sudden o unnatural death within the walls of a prison the officer in charge of the police station concerned shall send immediate intimation to the senior magistrate present at headquarter and shall proceed to the prison and place a guard over the body nor anything which may have caused the death ..... of the punjab police rules as well as section 174 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973, have not been complied with. there is no explanation for the same. furthermore, the father s protestation against the disposal of the body of his daughter by her in-laws, too was disregarded and w.p.(crl) 1838/2015 page 12 of 14 brushed aside by the police officials. these aspects need to be looked into. the facts of the case and the response of the police officials dealing with, or associated with the case, do not inspire confidence of a fair inquiry by the latter.14. in the aforesaid circumstances .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-21-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:21. 12.2018 CRL.M.C. 3033/2018 ROHIT KUMAR ........ Petitioner versus THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ) & ANR........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent : : Mr.Nusrat Hossain, Adv. with petitioner in person Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP SI Manisha Sharma, PS Aman Vihar. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1.... Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR582016 under Section 376/354D/366 IPC, Police Station Aman Vihar.2. The allegations in the FIR are that the prosecutrix/respondent No.2 became friends with the petitioner. Their friendship continued for 4 5 months where after the petitioner is alleged to have proposed and express his love for her.3. It is alleged that on false promise of marriage, the petitioner made physical relationship with her on 15.11.2015 and thereafter also CRL.M.C. 3033/2018 Page 1 of 8 they continued to make physical re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-21-2018
* + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: December 21, 2018 CRL.M.C. 6605/2018 & Crl.M.A.50616/2018 DHEERAJ & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. S.K. Gupta and Mr. B.Singh, Versus Advocates STATE & ANR. Through: Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public .....Respondents CORAM: Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Deepak Bhardwaj Mr. N.L. Singh, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.135/2012, under Sections 498-A/4of IPC registered at police station Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 30th August, 2018 (Annexure-4).2. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is the father of complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and he has been identified to be so, by SI Deepak Bhardwaj as well as by his counsel.3. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that Sapna, who is the complainant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-21-2018
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: December 21, 2018 CRL.M.C. 6583/2018 MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Yogesh Kaushik, Advocate Versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State... RESPONDENTS No.2 to 4 & 6 in person with Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate CRL.M.C. 6603/2018 SURENDER PRATAP PANDEY & ORS. Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate ........ Petitioners Versus THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State Respondent No.2 in person with Mr. Yogesh Kaushik, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Crl.M.C. 6583/2018 Crl.M.C. 6603/2018 Page 1 of 4 1. In the above captioned first petition, quashing of FIR No.980/2014, whereas in the above captioned second petition, quashing of FIR No.979/2014, both registered at police station Neb Sarai, Delhi is sought....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-21-2018
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: December 21, 2018 CRL.M.C. 6583/2018 MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Yogesh Kaushik, Advocate Versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State... RESPONDENTS No.2 to 4 & 6 in person with Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate CRL.M.C. 6603/2018 SURENDER PRATAP PANDEY & ORS. Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate ........ Petitioners Versus THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State Respondent No.2 in person with Mr. Yogesh Kaushik, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Crl.M.C. 6583/2018 Crl.M.C. 6603/2018 Page 1 of 4 1. In the above captioned first petition, quashing of FIR No.980/2014, whereas in the above captioned second petition, quashing of FIR No.979/2014, both registered at police station Neb Sarai, Delhi is sought....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-21-2018
* + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: December 21, 2018 CRL.M.C. 6568/2018 & Crl.M.A. 50498/2018 MANISH CHADHA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. L.N.Rao, Advocate Versus STATE ( GNCT OF DELHI)& ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Ram Lal Respondent No.2 in person with Mr. Sagar Bhatia, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.1466/2014, under Sections 289/323/341/506 IPC, registered at police station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi is sought on the basis of Compromise Deed of 10th October, 2018 (Annexure P-3).2. Upon notice, Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent No.2, complainant of FIR in question, is present in the Court and he has been identified to be so, by SI Ram Lal.3. Respondent No.2 /Complainant submits that Compromise Deed of 10th October, 2018 (Annexure P-3) has been acted upon and now, no Crl.M.C. 65...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-21-2018
* + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: December 21, 2018 Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 & Crl.M.A. 50694/2018 SAURABH ARORA & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Varun Mittal and Mr. Anish Sharma, Advocates THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI ) & ANR Versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with ASI Harish Chander Respondent No.2 in person with Ms. Monika Arora and Ms. Amrita Sharma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.700/2015, under Sections 406/498-A/34/509 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement of 14th May, 2018 (Annexure P-2) arrived at Counselling Cell, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.2. Notice.3. Mr. M.S. Oberoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for respondent No.1-State and Ms. Monika Arora, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState submits that respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-21-2018
* + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: December 21, 2018 Crl.M.C. 6566/2018 & CRL.M.A. 50495/2018 SABIR & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Aditya Gaur and Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocates Versus THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor, with ASI Ram Lal... RESPONDENTS No.2 & 3 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.23/2015, under Sections 323/341/3of IPC. registered at police station Malviya Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding dated 10th October, 2018 (Annexure- B).2. Upon notice, Mr. M.P. Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondents No.2 & 3 are the complainant party of FIR in question and they are present in the Court and have been identified to be so, by ASI Ram Lal on the basis of identity proof furnished by them. Crl.M.C. 6566/2018 Page 1 of 3 3.... RESPONDENTS No.2 & 3 submit that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-21-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: December 21, 2018 + CRL.A. 1261/2018 VIPIN STATE Through: Mr. Mayank Mikhail Mukherjee, ..... Appellant Advocate Versus ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Pankaj Kumar, P.S. Karawal Nagar, Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Crl.M.A. 50515/2018 (for Delay) There is delay of 10 days in filing the accompanying appeal. Upon hearing, I find that averments made in the instant application provide sufficient cause to condone the delay occasioned. The application is allowed and the delay stands condoned. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.A. 50514/2018 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.A. 1261/2018 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1972/2018 (under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence 1. Along with this Appeal, copy of evidence of the parties has been filed. Crl.A.1261/2018 Page 1 of 3 2. Upon hearing, I find that conviction of appellant i...
Tag this Judgment!