Full Text
Translation output
"-4..
$-19
* IN THE HIGH COURT
+ w.P.(cRL) 4r9l20Ir
TAPAN KUMARDEV
QF DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Through \4r. L.S. Solanki, Adv.
VETSUS
STATE & ORS ""' ResPondent
Through Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with
Mr. Shripal Singh, ASI, P.S. Rajinder
Nagar.
Mr. Dharam Raj, Adv. for R-4&5.
$-19
* IN THE HIGH COURT
+ w.P.(cRL) 4r9l20Ir
TAPAN KUMARDEV
QF DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Through \4r. L.S. Solanki, Adv.
VETSUS
STATE & ORS ""' ResPondent
Through Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with
Mr. Shripal Singh, ASI, P.S. Rajinder
Nagar.
Mr. Dharam Raj, Adv. for R-4&5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
% 2s.07.20rr
By this petition the Petitioners seeks restoration of possession of tenanted premise bearing No. J-419, Second Floor, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi to the Petitioner and transfer of investigation of case to DIU or the Crime Branch.
The case of the Petitioner is that an eviction petition was pending.
During the pendency of the eviction petition since the Petitioner's son was getting married, he had gone to another place after locking the present premises. He contends that the Respondent Nos. 4 to 5 broke open the lock, trespassed into the properfy, took the possession and stole the articles kept therein. The Petitioner thus seeks restoration of possession' As regards the prayer for transfer of investigation, the investigation is pending before the w.P.(cRL) 4t9l20rr page2 of?
2011:DHC:18740
1-T.t-
Police Station, Rajinder Nagar. The infirmity pointed out by the Petitioner is that Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have not been arested and since Respondent
Nos. 4 & 5 have not been arrested, the articles have not been recovered'
According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner the non-arrest of the
Respondents No. 4 & 5 infringes his right to live'
I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner' Respondents No' 4 &
5 have already filed an anticipatory bail application wherein this Court has stayed the arrest of Respondents No. 4 & 5. Moreover, it is well settled that on registration of FIR, in each case it is not essential that the accused has to be arrested for completion of the investigation. No right of the Petitioner is infringed on account of non-arrest of the Respondent Nos' 4 & 5' Further' it may be noted that the petition involves highly disputed questions of facts
.which cannot be adjudicated in the present petition and petitioner cannot be restored the possession through this writ petition also in view of the alternative efficacious legal remedies available to him.
I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed'
/1"^Y,I-
./f"'/E-
"MUKTA GUPTA,J
JULY 25,2011
'ga' w.P.(cRL) 4r9t20lr page2 oI2
2011:DHC:18740
% 2s.07.20rr
By this petition the Petitioners seeks restoration of possession of tenanted premise bearing No. J-419, Second Floor, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi to the Petitioner and transfer of investigation of case to DIU or the Crime Branch.
The case of the Petitioner is that an eviction petition was pending.
During the pendency of the eviction petition since the Petitioner's son was getting married, he had gone to another place after locking the present premises. He contends that the Respondent Nos. 4 to 5 broke open the lock, trespassed into the properfy, took the possession and stole the articles kept therein. The Petitioner thus seeks restoration of possession' As regards the prayer for transfer of investigation, the investigation is pending before the w.P.(cRL) 4t9l20rr page2 of?
2011:DHC:18740
1-T.t-
Police Station, Rajinder Nagar. The infirmity pointed out by the Petitioner is that Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have not been arested and since Respondent
Nos. 4 & 5 have not been arrested, the articles have not been recovered'
According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner the non-arrest of the
Respondents No. 4 & 5 infringes his right to live'
I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner' Respondents No' 4 &
5 have already filed an anticipatory bail application wherein this Court has stayed the arrest of Respondents No. 4 & 5. Moreover, it is well settled that on registration of FIR, in each case it is not essential that the accused has to be arrested for completion of the investigation. No right of the Petitioner is infringed on account of non-arrest of the Respondent Nos' 4 & 5' Further' it may be noted that the petition involves highly disputed questions of facts
.which cannot be adjudicated in the present petition and petitioner cannot be restored the possession through this writ petition also in view of the alternative efficacious legal remedies available to him.
I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed'
/1"^Y,I-
./f"'/E-
"MUKTA GUPTA,J
JULY 25,2011
'ga' w.P.(cRL) 4r9t20lr page2 oI2
2011:DHC:18740
JUDGMENT