Full Text
Translation output
.3.
L{
#L9, L7 o/o
02.08.20IL
Present: Mr.Ajit Nair, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for the respondent/State.
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jagdip Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 in WP(Crl). No.123212009
& respondents No.6 to 8 in WP(Crl). No.323/2009.
+WP(Crl). No.123212O09 & Crl.M.A. Nos.LO269/2009, L2607/2009, 133r.0/2009 & 133Lr./2009
+WP(Crl). No.323/2O09 & Crl.M.A. Nos.268O/2OO9 & 6557/2O10
After some arguments, learned counsels for both the parties agree that the SDM is supposed to dispose of the proceedings under Section 1-45
Cr.P.C. expeditiously and pendency of the proceedings continuously for the period of almost four years after sealing of the property is against the letter and spirit of Section 145 Cr.P.C. Learned counsels for the parties have no objection if direction is issued to S.E.M. to dispose of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in a time bound manner and, while doing so, the S.E.M. shall consider the legality and acceptability of the supplementary report submitted by the vigilance inquiry conducted by the police after hearing the parties on this aspect of the matter. ln view of the above, both the above writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the S.E.M. to expedite the disposal of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and to ensure that the proceedings are disposed of latest by 3L.L2.201-L and while doing so, he shall hear the
2011:DHC:18805 learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the admissibility of the supplementary inquiry reports of vigilance department of Delhi Police. ln terms of the above, petitions are disposed of.
It is clarified that the learned SDM while disposing of the matter shall not be influenced by the withdrawal of the proceedings pursuant to the FIR No.376/2007 P.S. Kirti Nagar by the State which is under challenge in this court.
Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
,..Nt-., (AJrT BHARTHOKE)
,UDGE
AUGUST 02,?OLL pst
O
2011:DHC:18805
L{
#L9, L7 o/o
02.08.20IL
Present: Mr.Ajit Nair, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for the respondent/State.
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jagdip Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 in WP(Crl). No.123212009
& respondents No.6 to 8 in WP(Crl). No.323/2009.
+WP(Crl). No.123212O09 & Crl.M.A. Nos.LO269/2009, L2607/2009, 133r.0/2009 & 133Lr./2009
+WP(Crl). No.323/2O09 & Crl.M.A. Nos.268O/2OO9 & 6557/2O10
After some arguments, learned counsels for both the parties agree that the SDM is supposed to dispose of the proceedings under Section 1-45
Cr.P.C. expeditiously and pendency of the proceedings continuously for the period of almost four years after sealing of the property is against the letter and spirit of Section 145 Cr.P.C. Learned counsels for the parties have no objection if direction is issued to S.E.M. to dispose of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in a time bound manner and, while doing so, the S.E.M. shall consider the legality and acceptability of the supplementary report submitted by the vigilance inquiry conducted by the police after hearing the parties on this aspect of the matter. ln view of the above, both the above writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the S.E.M. to expedite the disposal of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and to ensure that the proceedings are disposed of latest by 3L.L2.201-L and while doing so, he shall hear the
2011:DHC:18805 learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the admissibility of the supplementary inquiry reports of vigilance department of Delhi Police. ln terms of the above, petitions are disposed of.
It is clarified that the learned SDM while disposing of the matter shall not be influenced by the withdrawal of the proceedings pursuant to the FIR No.376/2007 P.S. Kirti Nagar by the State which is under challenge in this court.
Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
,..Nt-., (AJrT BHARTHOKE)
,UDGE
AUGUST 02,?OLL pst
O
2011:DHC:18805
JUDGMENT