Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C.955/2012
S.SURJAN SINGH Petitioner
Through: Nemo.
CRL.M.C.955/2012
S.SURJAN SINGH Petitioner
Through: Nemo.
VERSUS
BIRENDER PRASAD & ANR. Respondent
Through: Mr.C.Mohan Rao& Mr.Lokesh Kumar Sharma,Advocate
Through: Mr.C.Mohan Rao& Mr.Lokesh Kumar Sharma,Advocate
CONT.CAS(C)71/2015
BIRENDER PRASAD Petitioner
Through: Mr.C.Mohan Rao& Mr.Lokesh Kumar Sharma,Advocate
BIRENDER PRASAD Petitioner
Through: Mr.C.Mohan Rao& Mr.Lokesh Kumar Sharma,Advocate
VERSUS
S SURJAN SINGH Respondent
Through: Nemo.
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
06.07.2015 In the above captioned first petition, quashing of order of 30*^
January, 2012, vide which application under Section 156 (3) of the
Cr.P.C. of Birender Prasad was allowed, is sought. In the above captioned contemptpetition,violation oforder of12'*^ July,2013 in above captioned first petition is alleged by BirenderPrasad.
Crl.M.C.No.955/2012 Page 1 Cont.Cas(C)
No.71/2015 2015:DHC:10882
'■w
Vide order of 12^ July, 2013, parties were direeted to be present in the Court with original doeuments. Attention of this Court is drawn by th learned counsel for Birender Prasad to the subsequent order of 12 November, 2013 to submit that petitioner- S. Surjan Singh was not present on that day and so, this contempt petition. Vide order of 12^^
November, 2013, on the submission of the parties, this matter was referred for mediation. Mediationhas failed.
None had appeared for petitioner on 25'*' November, 2014, 23"^
February, 2015 and eventoday,none appears onbehalfofpetitioner.Due to default of petitioner- S. Surjan Singh in the above eaptioned first petition,it is dismissed for nonprosecution.
So far as the above eaptioned contempt petitionis concerned,Ifind that no doubt petitioner was directed to appear before this Court on 12 November, 2013 but since on the said date, counsel for the parties had submitted that the matter be referred to mediation, therefore, it cannot be said whether petitioner was present or not and so, there is no willful disobedience of the order of 12'*' July, 2013.
In view of aforesaid,Ido not find it to be a fit case for initiating contemptproceedings againstpetitioner -S. SurjanSingh.
Consequentially, the above eaptioned first petition is dismissed for non-proseeution and the above eaptioned contempt petition is also dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 06, 2015 r Crl.M.C.No.955/2012 2 Cont. Cas(C)No.71/2015
2015:DHC:10882
06.07.2015 In the above captioned first petition, quashing of order of 30*^
January, 2012, vide which application under Section 156 (3) of the
Cr.P.C. of Birender Prasad was allowed, is sought. In the above captioned contemptpetition,violation oforder of12'*^ July,2013 in above captioned first petition is alleged by BirenderPrasad.
Crl.M.C.No.955/2012 Page 1 Cont.Cas(C)
No.71/2015 2015:DHC:10882
'■w
Vide order of 12^ July, 2013, parties were direeted to be present in the Court with original doeuments. Attention of this Court is drawn by th learned counsel for Birender Prasad to the subsequent order of 12 November, 2013 to submit that petitioner- S. Surjan Singh was not present on that day and so, this contempt petition. Vide order of 12^^
November, 2013, on the submission of the parties, this matter was referred for mediation. Mediationhas failed.
None had appeared for petitioner on 25'*' November, 2014, 23"^
February, 2015 and eventoday,none appears onbehalfofpetitioner.Due to default of petitioner- S. Surjan Singh in the above eaptioned first petition,it is dismissed for nonprosecution.
So far as the above eaptioned contempt petitionis concerned,Ifind that no doubt petitioner was directed to appear before this Court on 12 November, 2013 but since on the said date, counsel for the parties had submitted that the matter be referred to mediation, therefore, it cannot be said whether petitioner was present or not and so, there is no willful disobedience of the order of 12'*' July, 2013.
In view of aforesaid,Ido not find it to be a fit case for initiating contemptproceedings againstpetitioner -S. SurjanSingh.
Consequentially, the above eaptioned first petition is dismissed for non-proseeution and the above eaptioned contempt petition is also dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 06, 2015 r Crl.M.C.No.955/2012 2 Cont. Cas(C)No.71/2015
2015:DHC:10882
JUDGMENT