Full Text
Translation output
,.., •
$-31 r HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3521/2010
MEHMOOD HASSAN & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Malhotra, Advocate
$-31 r HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3521/2010
MEHMOOD HASSAN & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Malhotra, Advocate
VERSUS
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State
CORAM:
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
12.11.2010 This petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing a criminal complaint. The present petition has been filed after framing of charge.
I consider that the petitioner was at liberty to argue before the trial court concerned at the time of framing charge. The learned trial court came to conclusion that there was sufficient material to frame charge. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the charge, the remedy available to the petitioner was to file a revision petition against charge and not quashing of criminal complaint.
The petition is hereby dismissed would be at liberty as available under law.
NOVEMBER 12, 2010 rd petitioner 2010:DHC:9798
12.11.2010 This petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing a criminal complaint. The present petition has been filed after framing of charge.
I consider that the petitioner was at liberty to argue before the trial court concerned at the time of framing charge. The learned trial court came to conclusion that there was sufficient material to frame charge. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the charge, the remedy available to the petitioner was to file a revision petition against charge and not quashing of criminal complaint.
The petition is hereby dismissed would be at liberty as available under law.
NOVEMBER 12, 2010 rd petitioner 2010:DHC:9798
JUDGMENT