Full Text
Translation output
$-25 & 26 HIGH COURT OF DELHI ' +(i) CRL.M.C. 1190/2014 &Crl.M.A.3971/2014
SWARARAJ @RAJ SHRIKANT THACKERAY Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Mr. Sayaji D. Nangre and Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocates
SWARARAJ @RAJ SHRIKANT THACKERAY Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Mr. Sayaji D. Nangre and Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocates
VERSUS
THE STATE & ORS
Through:
Respondents Mr. Praveen Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State (ii) CRL.M.C. 3535/2014 &Crl.M.A.12184/2014
SWARARAJ @RAJ SHRIKANT THACKERAY Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Mr. Sayaji D. Nangre and Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocates
Through:
Respondents Mr. Praveen Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State (ii) CRL.M.C. 3535/2014 &Crl.M.A.12184/2014
SWARARAJ @RAJ SHRIKANT THACKERAY Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Mr. Sayaji D. Nangre and Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocates
VERSUS
THE STATE & ORS
Through:
Respondents Mr. Praveen Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Through:
Respondents Mr. Praveen Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
2L05.2015 Learned senior counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned complaint has been already dismissed by the trial court on 31^' January, CRL.M.CS. 1190 & 3535 of2014
Page 1 2015:DHC:11161 -! 2015 and so, these petitions have become infructuous. However, a prayer is made that in the event of these complaints being revived, then Hberty be granted to petitioner to challenge the impugned order.
In view of aforesaid, the above captioned two petitions and the applications are disposed ofas infructuous with liberty as aforesaid.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 21, 2015 s CRL.M.Cs. 1190 &3535 of2014 Page 2
2015:DHC:11161
2L05.2015 Learned senior counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned complaint has been already dismissed by the trial court on 31^' January, CRL.M.CS. 1190 & 3535 of2014
Page 1 2015:DHC:11161 -! 2015 and so, these petitions have become infructuous. However, a prayer is made that in the event of these complaints being revived, then Hberty be granted to petitioner to challenge the impugned order.
In view of aforesaid, the above captioned two petitions and the applications are disposed ofas infructuous with liberty as aforesaid.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 21, 2015 s CRL.M.Cs. 1190 &3535 of2014 Page 2
2015:DHC:11161
JUDGMENT