Rohtash Tomar v. State

Delhi High Court · 07 Jan 2019 · 2019:DHC:37
Sunil Gaur
Crl.M.C. 2/2019
2019:DHC:37
criminal petition_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash an FIR under Sections 186, 353, 224, and 34 IPC, holding that absence of sanction under Section 195 Cr.P.C. for Section 224 IPC charges does not warrant quashing when offences are independent.

Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C. 2/2019 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: January 07, 2019
CRL.M.C. 2/2019
ROHTASH TOMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Aasha Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI
Prem Yadav
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 11/2019 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 10/2019 & Crl.M.A. 10/2019 (for stay)
Quashing of FIR No.673/2015, under Sections 186/353/225/34
IPC, registered at police station Nangloi, Delhi is sought on the ground that without sanction under Section 195 Cr.P.C, charge under Section 224 of IPC cannot be framed. To submit so, reliance is placed upon decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gurinder Singh Vs. State of Delhi
JUDGMENT

1996 LawSuit (Del) 463 and Sushil Sharma & Anr. Vs. State & Anr. 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7655. Upon hearing and on perusal of charge and decisions cited, I find that the allegation against petitioner for the offences under Section 186 2019:DHC:37 Crl.M.C. 2/2019 and 224 of IPC are not interwoven and so, reliance placed upon decisions in Gurinder Singh and Sushil Sharma (Supra) is of no avail. The concurrent findings of the courts below do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. In the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for invoking extra-ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the impugned orders. This petition and application are accordingly dismissed. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 07, 2019 r 2019:DHC:37

JUDGMENT