Full Text
Translation output
$-43 & 44 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) CRL.M.C. 4688/2013
NETRAM & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Partap Singh Parmar, Advocate
NETRAM & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Partap Singh Parmar, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr.Karan Singh, Additional Public _ Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI DineshKumar
Complainant party in person (ii) CRL.M.C; 4748/2013
ALAUDIN & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Partap Singh Parmar, Advocate
Through: Mr.Karan Singh, Additional Public _ Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI DineshKumar
Complainant party in person (ii) CRL.M.C; 4748/2013
ALAUDIN & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Partap Singh Parmar, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr.Karan Singh, Additional Public . Prosecutor for respondent-State
0 with SI Dinesh Kumar Complainant party in person
Through: Mr.Karan Singh, Additional Public . Prosecutor for respondent-State
0 with SI Dinesh Kumar Complainant party in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
27.02.2015 In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of cross FIRs i.e.
FIR No.307/2013, under Sections 323/324/336/506/34 of IPC and
CRL.M.C. 4688 & 4788 of2013 Page 1 2015:DHC:10654
Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act [in CRL.M.C. 4688/2013] and FIR
No.306/2013 under Sections 336/506/34 of IPG and Sections 25/27 of the
Arms Act [in CRL.M.C.4748/2013J, both registered at police station
Ranhola, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavits respondents No.2- complainant/first-informant ofthe FIRs in question.
Since the quashing in these petitions is sought on identical grounds, therefore, these two petitions were heard together and by this common order, they are being disposed of
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
^ that the investigation in these two FIR cases will be completed within
J four weeks from today while taking into consideration affidavits of respondentsNo.2-complainants/first-informants ofthe FIRs in question.
Since the substantial investigation has been already completed, therefore, this Gourt is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash these FIRs and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
Respondent-State is directed to take into consideration the affidavits of complainant party in the FIRs in question and to record their
^ supplementary statements and thereafter, file the final report before trial court within four weeks from today. The parties would be at liberty to avail ofthe remedies as available in law to them, ifneed be.
The above captioned two petitionsare accordingly disposedof
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 27, 2015 s CJilMC. 4688 & 4788of2013 Page 2
2015:DHC:10654
27.02.2015 In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of cross FIRs i.e.
FIR No.307/2013, under Sections 323/324/336/506/34 of IPC and
CRL.M.C. 4688 & 4788 of2013 Page 1 2015:DHC:10654
Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act [in CRL.M.C. 4688/2013] and FIR
No.306/2013 under Sections 336/506/34 of IPG and Sections 25/27 of the
Arms Act [in CRL.M.C.4748/2013J, both registered at police station
Ranhola, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavits respondents No.2- complainant/first-informant ofthe FIRs in question.
Since the quashing in these petitions is sought on identical grounds, therefore, these two petitions were heard together and by this common order, they are being disposed of
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
^ that the investigation in these two FIR cases will be completed within
J four weeks from today while taking into consideration affidavits of respondentsNo.2-complainants/first-informants ofthe FIRs in question.
Since the substantial investigation has been already completed, therefore, this Gourt is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash these FIRs and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
Respondent-State is directed to take into consideration the affidavits of complainant party in the FIRs in question and to record their
^ supplementary statements and thereafter, file the final report before trial court within four weeks from today. The parties would be at liberty to avail ofthe remedies as available in law to them, ifneed be.
The above captioned two petitionsare accordingly disposedof
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 27, 2015 s CJilMC. 4688 & 4788of2013 Page 2
2015:DHC:10654
JUDGMENT