Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Tr. P. (Crl.) No. 49/2013 & Crl.
M.A. No. 13874/2013
RAJIV Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.P. Chauhan & Mr. Y.R.
Sharma, Advocates
Tr. P. (Crl.) No. 49/2013 & Crl.
M.A. No. 13874/2013
RAJIV Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.P. Chauhan & Mr. Y.R.
Sharma, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE & ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No. 1-State with SI Vikas Mr. Ramesh Gupta, senior counsel with associate counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4.
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No. 1-State with SI Vikas Mr. Ramesh Gupta, senior counsel with associate counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
16.09.2013 Regarding an incident of 3""^ September, 2013, FIR No. 193/2013 under Sections 307/34 of the IPG was got registered at police station
Kapasehra, Delhi against respondents No. 2 to 4 and a cross FIR NO. 194/2013, under Sections 308/323/321/34 of the IPG, has been registered at the aforesaid police station against petitioner and his co-accused -
Ratan and Rakesh. By way of this petition, transfer of proceedings in respect of the aforesaid FIRs is sought out side District Gourt (District
SouthWest), DwarkaCourts, New Delhito any otherDistrict Gourt, as it is stated that respondent No.2 is a practicing lawyer at Dwarka Courts
T.R. P. (Crl) No.49/2013 Page1 2013:DHC:8243 and when the bail application of co-accused i.e. respondents No. 3 & 4 is listed for hearing, petitioner is not allowed to oppose the said application by the office bearers of the local Bar Association, who suiTound petitioner and his counsel at the time of hearing of the bail application and no good lawyer is permitted to appear on behalf ofpetitioner.
Upon notice, Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 strenuously opposes this petition and submits that this petition is misconceived, as there is no question of not letting petitioner's counsel speak at the hearing of the bail application of respondents No. 3 and 4, who are in custody.
After hearing both the sides and on perusal of both the FIRs and the material on record, I find that justice should not only be done but seem to be done. Since the second respondent is a practicing lawyer at
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, therefore, it is directed that the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid two FIRs shall be dealt with by the District &
Sessions Judge, New Delhi District at Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi.
With aforesaid directions, this petition and application are disposed of
Dasti.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 T.R. P. (Crl.) No.49/2013 (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 2 2013:DHC:8243
16.09.2013 Regarding an incident of 3""^ September, 2013, FIR No. 193/2013 under Sections 307/34 of the IPG was got registered at police station
Kapasehra, Delhi against respondents No. 2 to 4 and a cross FIR NO. 194/2013, under Sections 308/323/321/34 of the IPG, has been registered at the aforesaid police station against petitioner and his co-accused -
Ratan and Rakesh. By way of this petition, transfer of proceedings in respect of the aforesaid FIRs is sought out side District Gourt (District
SouthWest), DwarkaCourts, New Delhito any otherDistrict Gourt, as it is stated that respondent No.2 is a practicing lawyer at Dwarka Courts
T.R. P. (Crl) No.49/2013 Page1 2013:DHC:8243 and when the bail application of co-accused i.e. respondents No. 3 & 4 is listed for hearing, petitioner is not allowed to oppose the said application by the office bearers of the local Bar Association, who suiTound petitioner and his counsel at the time of hearing of the bail application and no good lawyer is permitted to appear on behalf ofpetitioner.
Upon notice, Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 strenuously opposes this petition and submits that this petition is misconceived, as there is no question of not letting petitioner's counsel speak at the hearing of the bail application of respondents No. 3 and 4, who are in custody.
After hearing both the sides and on perusal of both the FIRs and the material on record, I find that justice should not only be done but seem to be done. Since the second respondent is a practicing lawyer at
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, therefore, it is directed that the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid two FIRs shall be dealt with by the District &
Sessions Judge, New Delhi District at Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi.
With aforesaid directions, this petition and application are disposed of
Dasti.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 T.R. P. (Crl.) No.49/2013 (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 2 2013:DHC:8243
JUDGMENT