Full Text
Translation output
p $-39 to 41 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1204/2015
ANURADHA CHOWDHRY Petitioner Througii: Mr. S.S. Wani and Mr. Arjun Choudhary, Advocates.
CRL.M.C. 1204/2015
ANURADHA CHOWDHRY Petitioner Througii: Mr. S.S. Wani and Mr. Arjun Choudhary, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR Respondents Througli: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for State.
Mr. Viraj Datar and Mr. Vineet Jahnji, Advocates for R-2.
Mr. Viraj Datar and Mr. Vineet Jahnji, Advocates for R-2.
W.P.(CRL) 1470/2015, CRL.M.A. 10184/2015
AJAY CHOWDITRY & ANR Petitioners.
Through: Mr. S.S. Wani and Mr. Arjun
AJAY CHOWDITRY & ANR Petitioners.
Through: Mr. S.S. Wani and Mr. Arjun
VERSUS
THE STATE THROUGH: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Respondents
Through: Mr. Avi Singh, ASC with Ms. Pumima, Advocate for R-1.
Jahnji, Advocates for R-6.
Respondents
Through: Mr. Avi Singh, ASC with Ms. Pumima, Advocate for R-1.
Jahnji, Advocates for R-6.
W.P.(CRL) 3404/2016 \
ANURADHA CHOWDHARY Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Wani and Mr. Arjun
ANURADHA CHOWDHARY Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Wani and Mr. Arjun
VERSUS
STATE & ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Lao, ASC for State.
2018:DHC:9080 Jahnji, Advocates for R-6.
Mr. Madhur A.rora,,Advocate for R-7.
Through: Mr.Sanjay Lao, ASC for State.
2018:DHC:9080 Jahnji, Advocates for R-6.
Mr. Madhur A.rora,,Advocate for R-7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
09.07.2018 This petition seeks the following reliefs:
In CRL.M.C. 1204/2015 It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the
FIR No. 742/14 dated 20.09.2014 , U/S ' 471/448/467/ 468/420/120B ofIndian Penal Code
^ registered with P.S. Jyoti Nagar, Delhi, in view of.
^ thefacts and circumstances ofthe present case, in the interest ofjustice.
Any other or further order(s) which this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be. passed under the facts and circumstances of the case.
In W.P.(CRL) 1470/2015 a.Direction to transfer the investigation of
FIR No-229/06, 612/07 & 44/13 from the Delhi Police, EOW Cell and being entrusted to the CBI for proper investigation ofthe matter; and/or b. Direct the Respondent No-2 to change the Present I.O (Respondent No-5) by appointing an independent I.O. to undertake the investigation in the FIRs independently, impartially and without any bias; and/or
Any other or further order which this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent: and In W.P.rCRL) 3404/2016 a. Direction to transfer the investigation of FIR
No. 742/2014 and FIR No 672/2015 from the Delhi Police, EOW Cell and PS Jyoti Nagar being entrusted, to the CBI for fair and impartial investigation ofthe matter; and/or b. Direct the investigation officers of both the
FIR's to seize the alleged Original Five Share
^ Transfer Deeds from the records of Suit No- jT-, 57946/16 pending in court ofSh. Surinder Singh
Rathi, Ld ADJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and investigate the authenticity of share transfer stamps affixed, on the same in view ofthe report of the Indian Security Press (Govt ofIndia) and/or; c. Any other or further order(s) which this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents
\ ^ At the outset, the learned counsel for the State submits that the petition is not maintainable clearly on two grounds:
~ ~ (i) That the investigation has already been completed, the charge sheet has been filed, therefore there is no question for the case being transferred to any other agency;
(ii) That the petitioner is accused and he cannot seek transfer.
> __ ^ Mr. Avi Singh relies upon the following judgments:
(i) Disha v. State ofGujarat, (2011) 13 SCC 337;
(ii) CBIV. Rajesh Gandhi, (1996) 11 SCC 253;
(iii) W.P.(CrL) 2457/2014; decided by this Court on 08.07.2016; and
(iv) W.P.(Crl.) 2400/2014; decided by this Courton 08.07.2016.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states, upon instructions, that he would not like to press the petition on merits and would like to withdraw it. However, he seeks liberty to pursue such remedies as may be available to the petitioner apropos documents and other evidences which may have deliberately or otherwise been left out during the investigation.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty granted.
[I WAZIRI, J JULY 09, 201.8/acm/RW
09.07.2018 This petition seeks the following reliefs:
In CRL.M.C. 1204/2015 It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the
FIR No. 742/14 dated 20.09.2014 , U/S ' 471/448/467/ 468/420/120B ofIndian Penal Code
^ registered with P.S. Jyoti Nagar, Delhi, in view of.
^ thefacts and circumstances ofthe present case, in the interest ofjustice.
Any other or further order(s) which this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be. passed under the facts and circumstances of the case.
In W.P.(CRL) 1470/2015 a.Direction to transfer the investigation of
FIR No-229/06, 612/07 & 44/13 from the Delhi Police, EOW Cell and being entrusted to the CBI for proper investigation ofthe matter; and/or b. Direct the Respondent No-2 to change the Present I.O (Respondent No-5) by appointing an independent I.O. to undertake the investigation in the FIRs independently, impartially and without any bias; and/or
Any other or further order which this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent: and In W.P.rCRL) 3404/2016 a. Direction to transfer the investigation of FIR
No. 742/2014 and FIR No 672/2015 from the Delhi Police, EOW Cell and PS Jyoti Nagar being entrusted, to the CBI for fair and impartial investigation ofthe matter; and/or b. Direct the investigation officers of both the
FIR's to seize the alleged Original Five Share
^ Transfer Deeds from the records of Suit No- jT-, 57946/16 pending in court ofSh. Surinder Singh
Rathi, Ld ADJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and investigate the authenticity of share transfer stamps affixed, on the same in view ofthe report of the Indian Security Press (Govt ofIndia) and/or; c. Any other or further order(s) which this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents
\ ^ At the outset, the learned counsel for the State submits that the petition is not maintainable clearly on two grounds:
~ ~ (i) That the investigation has already been completed, the charge sheet has been filed, therefore there is no question for the case being transferred to any other agency;
(ii) That the petitioner is accused and he cannot seek transfer.
> __ ^ Mr. Avi Singh relies upon the following judgments:
(i) Disha v. State ofGujarat, (2011) 13 SCC 337;
(ii) CBIV. Rajesh Gandhi, (1996) 11 SCC 253;
(iii) W.P.(CrL) 2457/2014; decided by this Court on 08.07.2016; and
(iv) W.P.(Crl.) 2400/2014; decided by this Courton 08.07.2016.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states, upon instructions, that he would not like to press the petition on merits and would like to withdraw it. However, he seeks liberty to pursue such remedies as may be available to the petitioner apropos documents and other evidences which may have deliberately or otherwise been left out during the investigation.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty granted.
[I WAZIRI, J JULY 09, 201.8/acm/RW
JUDGMENT