Vijay Tata v. State & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 15 Jan 2015 · 2015:DHC:10570
Manmohan Singh
CRL.M.C. 3651/2011
2015:DHC:10570
criminal petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw multiple petitions with liberty to rely on settlement agreements and affidavits at the trial court’s framing of charges stage, directing the trial court to consider these documents on their merits.

Full Text
Translation output
io $-56-66 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3651/2011, Crl. M.A. Nos.17480/2011, 17937/2012, 14330/2013 & 8674/2014
VIJAYTATA Petitioner
Through Mr.Ashwin Vaish, Adv. with Mr.Vinod Pandey, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE &ORS Respondents
Through Mr.M.P.Singh, APP forthe State/R-1 Mr.Anil Soni, Adv. for R-2 to R-4.
CRL.M.C. 3652/2011 & Crl.
M.A. No.17482/2011
VIJAY TATA Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE & ORS Respondents
Through Mr.M.P.Singh, APP forthe State/R-1, CRL.M.C. 3653/2011 & Crl.
M.A. No.17484/2011
VERSUS
Through Mr.M.P.Singh, APP for the State/R-1 2015:DHC:10570
CRL.M.C. 3654/2011 & Crl.
M.A. No.17486/2011
VIJAY TATA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.AshwinVaish, Adv. with
VERSUS
Through Mr.M.P.Singh, APP forthe State/R-1.
^ + CRL.M.C. 3655/2011 & Crl.
M.A.No.17488/2011
VERSUS
CRL.M.C. 3657/2011 & Crl.
M.A. No.17492/2011
^ Through Mr.Ashwin Vaish, Adv. with
VERSUS
STATE & QRS Respondents
Through Mr.M.P.Singh, APP for the State/R-1.
CRL.M.C. 3658/2011 & Crl.
M.A. No.17494/2011
VERSUS
CRL.M.C. 3661/2011 & Crl.
M.A. No.17500/2011
VERSUS
CRL.M.C. 3662/2011 & Crl.
M.A. No.17502/2011
VERSUS
CRL.M.C. 3665/2011 & Crl.
M.A. No.17508/2011
VERSUS
STATE & ORS
Through A 3' Respondents Mr.M.P.Singh, APP for the State/R-1.
CRL.M.C. 3667/2011 & Crl.
M.A. No.l7512/2011
VIJAYTATA Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE & ORS
Through Respondents Mr.M.P.Singh, APP for the State/R-1, CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
15.01.2015 With the consent of the parties to pass the following orders, the petitioner in all the matters wishes to withdraw the petition; i) The petitioner is permitted to rely upon all the Agreements/
Settlement Deed before the learned Trial Court at the stage of argument on the issue of framing of charge and the same would be considered by the learned Trial Court, as per their own merit so as the grounds raised inthe present petitions. ii) The affidavits filed by both parties in terms oforder dated 19^^ July, 2013 giving the particulars ofsettlement ofthe cases would also be considered by the Trial Court atthe stage offraming ofcharges. f
\J\P
Ordered accordingly. All the petitions stand disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
Copies of this orderbe givendasti to boththe parties.
JANUARY 15, 2015
JUDGMENT