Full Text
Translation output
24#$
* IN THE HIGHOURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 13/2011 '
KAMLESH & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajender Singi, Advocate.
* IN THE HIGHOURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 13/2011 '
KAMLESH & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajender Singi, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr. C.L. Gupta, APP with SI Girraj
Singh, PS Badar Pur, Delhi.
Through: Mr. C.L. Gupta, APP with SI Girraj
Singh, PS Badar Pur, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
% 09.08.2011
By this petition the Petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 194/2009 under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC registered at PS Badarpur against the Petitioners.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that after a full fledged trial both the sons of the Petitioners have been acquitted and since the
Petitioners are senior citizens they could not appear before the Court and thus they were declared proclaimed offenders. Relying upon Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1995 (2) C. C. Cases 45 (HC) and Amarjit vs. State, 1996
C.C. Cases 465 (NC) it is urged that once the co-accused with similar evidence have been acquitted this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.0 can quash the charge and the proceedings pursuant thereto, the same being an abuse of
.
CRL.M. C. 1312011
2011:DHC:8965 the process of the Court. Learned counsel for he Petitioner in the alternate also prays that their arrest be stayed in the meantime so that the Petitioners can submit to the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court and take remedies in /
/ accordance with law.
.7
Learned APP on the other hand contends that the judgments relied upon by the Petitioners are of no avail as in both the cases the Petitioners
I therein had surrendered before the Court, were granted bail and thereafter the High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, whereas
S in the present case the Petitioners have not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Learned Trial Court.
In the present case the Petitioner No. 1 is aged 70 years and Petitioner
No. 2 is aged 75 years. The evjdence on record prima facie against the
Petitioners appears to be same as that of their sons who have been acquitted in the abovementioned FIR. In the interest of justice it is therefore, directed that no coercive action be taken against the Petitioners for a period of two weeks within which period the Petitioners would submit to the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court and take remedies as available in law.
Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.
GUPTA, AUGUST 09, 201 1/'vn'
CRL.M.C. 1312011 Page 2 of2
2011:DHC:8965
% 09.08.2011
By this petition the Petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 194/2009 under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC registered at PS Badarpur against the Petitioners.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that after a full fledged trial both the sons of the Petitioners have been acquitted and since the
Petitioners are senior citizens they could not appear before the Court and thus they were declared proclaimed offenders. Relying upon Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1995 (2) C. C. Cases 45 (HC) and Amarjit vs. State, 1996
C.C. Cases 465 (NC) it is urged that once the co-accused with similar evidence have been acquitted this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.0 can quash the charge and the proceedings pursuant thereto, the same being an abuse of
.
CRL.M. C. 1312011
2011:DHC:8965 the process of the Court. Learned counsel for he Petitioner in the alternate also prays that their arrest be stayed in the meantime so that the Petitioners can submit to the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court and take remedies in /
/ accordance with law.
.7
Learned APP on the other hand contends that the judgments relied upon by the Petitioners are of no avail as in both the cases the Petitioners
I therein had surrendered before the Court, were granted bail and thereafter the High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, whereas
S in the present case the Petitioners have not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Learned Trial Court.
In the present case the Petitioner No. 1 is aged 70 years and Petitioner
No. 2 is aged 75 years. The evjdence on record prima facie against the
Petitioners appears to be same as that of their sons who have been acquitted in the abovementioned FIR. In the interest of justice it is therefore, directed that no coercive action be taken against the Petitioners for a period of two weeks within which period the Petitioners would submit to the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court and take remedies as available in law.
Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.
GUPTA, AUGUST 09, 201 1/'vn'
CRL.M.C. 1312011 Page 2 of2
2011:DHC:8965
JUDGMENT