Full Text
Translation output
$-4&s
* IN TIIE
+
S.K. MIDHA ..... Petitioner
Ms.Madhu Tewatia & Ms.Sidhi
Atora, Advocates
1n l5
I
IIIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELIII
CRL.M.C. 3189/2009
&
Crl.
M.A. No.10742l2009
&
I
Crl.
M.A. No.10743/2009
MAHIPAL & ORS' . ""' Petitioners
Through: Ms.Madhu Tewatia & Ms'Sidhi
Arora, Advocates'
* IN TIIE
+
S.K. MIDHA ..... Petitioner
Ms.Madhu Tewatia & Ms.Sidhi
Atora, Advocates
1n l5
I
IIIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELIII
CRL.M.C. 3189/2009
&
Crl.
M.A. No.10742l2009
&
I
Crl.
M.A. No.10743/2009
MAHIPAL & ORS' . ""' Petitioners
Through: Ms.Madhu Tewatia & Ms'Sidhi
Arora, Advocates'
VERSUS
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. "" RCSPONdCNTS
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Col. B.B. Sharma, resPondent No'2 in Person.
CRL.M.C. 3561/2009
&
Crl.
M.A. No.12069/2009
&
+
I
Crl.
M.A. No.3999/2010
Through:
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Col. B.B. Sharma, resPondent No'2 in Person.
CRL.M.C. 3561/2009
&
Crl.
M.A. No.12069/2009
&
+
I
Crl.
M.A. No.3999/2010
Through:
VERSUS
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & A].{R.
Through: Mr. sunil rn.r-;,' ltiiro,l,l*""'
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Lt. Col. B.B. Sharma, resPondent
No.2 in person.
Crl. M.C. Nos' 3789/2009 &s561/2009
Page 1
2013:DHC:6845
Through: Mr. sunil rn.r-;,' ltiiro,l,l*""'
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Lt. Col. B.B. Sharma, resPondent
No.2 in person.
Crl. M.C. Nos' 3789/2009 &s561/2009
Page 1
2013:DHC:6845
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
% 28.01.2013 petitioners in the above captioned two petitions are challenging . their prosecution for offence under Section 166 of the I'P'C' on the ground that the prosecution of petitioners is barred by the provisions of
Sections 467 & 470 of The Delhi Municipal Act, 1957.
At the hearing, learned counsel relied upon decisions in Lttiq-ur'
Rehman Vs. Municipal Corporation of Dethi & Anr. (1996) 3 SCC 37;
Dr. B.L. Wadehra Vs. Union Of India & Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 594; Almitra
H. Patel &Anr. vs. (Jnionof India & ors. (2000) 2 SCC 679 & w'P' C'
No. 175812005, Nyaya Bhoomi (A Regd. society) vs. Municipal
Corporation of Dethi & Anr., rendered on 27h July, 2005 and drew attention of this Court to the various grounds taken in this petition to point out that contempt petition filed by the complainant has been already dismissed by this Court and so, a good case is made out for quashing of the complaint under Section 166 of the I.P.C. (Annexure P-2) pending against petitioners.
It is stated on behalf of respondents that the investigation in this matter is complete and the matter is pending before the trial court for hearing on the Point of Charge.
Since petitioners can very well raise the pleas urged herein before the trial court at the time of hearing on the point of Charge, therefore, this
Court is inclined to relegate petitioners to appear before the trial court to raise the pleas taken herein when they are heard on the point of Charge'
Crl. It4.C. Nos. 3189/2009 8.3561/2009
Page2 v\
With observations as aforesaid, both the above captioned petitions and pending applications are disposed of, while expressing no opinion on the merits of these cases.
JANUARY 28,2013 rS a
A, CrL M.C. Nos.3789/2009 &3561/2009 Page 3
% 28.01.2013 petitioners in the above captioned two petitions are challenging . their prosecution for offence under Section 166 of the I'P'C' on the ground that the prosecution of petitioners is barred by the provisions of
Sections 467 & 470 of The Delhi Municipal Act, 1957.
At the hearing, learned counsel relied upon decisions in Lttiq-ur'
Rehman Vs. Municipal Corporation of Dethi & Anr. (1996) 3 SCC 37;
Dr. B.L. Wadehra Vs. Union Of India & Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 594; Almitra
H. Patel &Anr. vs. (Jnionof India & ors. (2000) 2 SCC 679 & w'P' C'
No. 175812005, Nyaya Bhoomi (A Regd. society) vs. Municipal
Corporation of Dethi & Anr., rendered on 27h July, 2005 and drew attention of this Court to the various grounds taken in this petition to point out that contempt petition filed by the complainant has been already dismissed by this Court and so, a good case is made out for quashing of the complaint under Section 166 of the I.P.C. (Annexure P-2) pending against petitioners.
It is stated on behalf of respondents that the investigation in this matter is complete and the matter is pending before the trial court for hearing on the Point of Charge.
Since petitioners can very well raise the pleas urged herein before the trial court at the time of hearing on the point of Charge, therefore, this
Court is inclined to relegate petitioners to appear before the trial court to raise the pleas taken herein when they are heard on the point of Charge'
Crl. It4.C. Nos. 3189/2009 8.3561/2009
Page2 v\
With observations as aforesaid, both the above captioned petitions and pending applications are disposed of, while expressing no opinion on the merits of these cases.
JANUARY 28,2013 rS a
A, CrL M.C. Nos.3789/2009 &3561/2009 Page 3
JUDGMENT