Full Text
Translation output
a $-21 to 24 (common order)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3391/2016
ATUL JAIN Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Prayas Aneja, Adv.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3391/2016
ATUL JAIN Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Prayas Aneja, Adv.
VERSUS
RAVINDER Respondent
Through; Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocate
Through; Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocate
CRL.M.C. 3404/2016
ATUL JAIN
Through:
ATUL JAIN
Through:
VERSUS
SURAJMAL
Through:
Through:
CRL.M.C. 3405/2016
ATUL JAIN
Through:
ATUL JAIN
Through:
VERSUS
Petitioner Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate with Respondent
Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocate Petitioner Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate with
MANGTOO RAM Respondent
Through: Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocate
Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocate Petitioner Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate with
MANGTOO RAM Respondent
Through: Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocate
CRL.M.C. 3406/2016
ATUL JAIN Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate with ROHTASH
ATUL JAIN Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate with ROHTASH
VERSUS
Respondent
Through: Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocate
Through: Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
CRL.M.C. 3391/2016 & etc. Page 1 of2
2018:DHC:8260 D
28.11.2018 For the reasons explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the costs imposed on the last date ofhearing are waived.
After some hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that he may be allowed to withdraw these petitions, the petitioner reserving the right to raise the version set out in the criminal
V complaint ca^e (CC No.739/1/2014) as plea of defence in the ongoing criminal trial against the petitioner and his brother and certain others in the context of FIR No.249/14 of Police Station Dabri, involving offences punishable under Sections 186/353/332/334 IPC, his only apprehension being that the observations of the court of sessions sitting in revision petitions of the respondents which were allowed by order dated 04.06.2016 may not be construed as fmal expression of opinion on merits.
Since the observations of the revisional court were in the context of criminal complaint (CC No.739/1/2014) instituted by the petitioner, they obviously would not be treated as fmal expression of opinion on merits in the criminal complaint against the petitioner wherein the concerned criminal court will have to reach the appropriate finding on the basis of evidence led before it in accordance with law.
The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise the above version in the criminal complaint as defence pka^s prayed for.
Dasti.
\ r R.l^^^d)wBA, J.
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
2018:DHC:8260 D
28.11.2018 For the reasons explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the costs imposed on the last date ofhearing are waived.
After some hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that he may be allowed to withdraw these petitions, the petitioner reserving the right to raise the version set out in the criminal
V complaint ca^e (CC No.739/1/2014) as plea of defence in the ongoing criminal trial against the petitioner and his brother and certain others in the context of FIR No.249/14 of Police Station Dabri, involving offences punishable under Sections 186/353/332/334 IPC, his only apprehension being that the observations of the court of sessions sitting in revision petitions of the respondents which were allowed by order dated 04.06.2016 may not be construed as fmal expression of opinion on merits.
Since the observations of the revisional court were in the context of criminal complaint (CC No.739/1/2014) instituted by the petitioner, they obviously would not be treated as fmal expression of opinion on merits in the criminal complaint against the petitioner wherein the concerned criminal court will have to reach the appropriate finding on the basis of evidence led before it in accordance with law.
The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise the above version in the criminal complaint as defence pka^s prayed for.
Dasti.
\ r R.l^^^d)wBA, J.
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
CRL.M.C. 3391/2016& etc. Page 2 of2
2018:DHC:8260
2018:DHC:8260
JUDGMENT