Full Text
Translation output
#20 "1
% 08.08.2011
Present: Mr.R.S. Juneja, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Nikhil Menon, Advocate for Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC for respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4/State.
Mr. T.S. Ahuja, Advocate for respondent No.2.
+WP(CrI) No.1132/2010
The petitioners vide this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has prayed for quashing of FIR No.140/2010 under Section 448/380/34 IPC P.S. Krishna
Nagar on the ground that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose commission of offence and subject matter of the FIR is basically a civil dispute.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that after investigation, the police filed final report seeking cancellation of FIR in the court of M.M. concerned and the Magistrate has rejected the requested for cancellation and taken cognizance of the offence. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have already filed a revision petition against the cognizance order which is pending before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge.
In view of the above, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. has become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed.
11~
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
AUGUST 08, 2011 pst
2011:DHC:18814
% 08.08.2011
Present: Mr.R.S. Juneja, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Nikhil Menon, Advocate for Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC for respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4/State.
Mr. T.S. Ahuja, Advocate for respondent No.2.
+WP(CrI) No.1132/2010
The petitioners vide this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has prayed for quashing of FIR No.140/2010 under Section 448/380/34 IPC P.S. Krishna
Nagar on the ground that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose commission of offence and subject matter of the FIR is basically a civil dispute.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that after investigation, the police filed final report seeking cancellation of FIR in the court of M.M. concerned and the Magistrate has rejected the requested for cancellation and taken cognizance of the offence. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have already filed a revision petition against the cognizance order which is pending before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge.
In view of the above, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. has become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed.
11~
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
AUGUST 08, 2011 pst
2011:DHC:18814
JUDGMENT