Full Text
Translation output
$-34 and 35 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1558/2017 , CRL. M.A. 6339/2017
ADIGEAR INTERNATIONAL Petitioner
Through Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. Baruah, Mr. V. Deswal, Mr. Siddharth Singh and Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Advocates
CRL.M.C. 1558/2017 , CRL. M.A. 6339/2017
ADIGEAR INTERNATIONAL Petitioner
Through Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. Baruah, Mr. V. Deswal, Mr. Siddharth Singh and Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE, NCT OF DELHI & ANR Respondents
Through Mr. Manjeet Arya, APP with SI Naveen Dahiya
Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Mr. Rajnish Gaur and Mr. Abhimanyu Nirula, Advocates for R-2
Through Mr. Manjeet Arya, APP with SI Naveen Dahiya
Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Mr. Rajnish Gaur and Mr. Abhimanyu Nirula, Advocates for R-2
CRL.M.C. 1569/2017, CRL. M.A. 6362/2017
P N KHANNA & ORS Petitioners
Through
P N KHANNA & ORS Petitioners
Through
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR Respondents
Through Mr. Manjeet Arya, APP SI Naveen Dahiya, PS B.K. Road
Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Mr. Rajnish Gaur 2017:DHC:8049 and Mr. Abhimanyu Nirula, Advocates for R-2
Through Mr. Manjeet Arya, APP SI Naveen Dahiya, PS B.K. Road
Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Mr. Rajnish Gaur 2017:DHC:8049 and Mr. Abhimanyu Nirula, Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
19.07.2017 Respondent filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.0 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate which was dismissed vide order dated 10th November, 2016. Respondent preferred a revision petition before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Act against the said order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Learned
Special Judge had remanded the matter back to the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate for considering the matter afresh vide order dated 10.03.2017. However, an observation has been made in para 21 of the said order to the effect: "complaint and documents disclose cognizable offences which require to be investigated by the police".
Grievance of the petitioner is that without hearing the petitioner such observation have been made with which, learned Metropolitan
Magistrate is bound to be influenced. By placing reliance on Rajthu
Raj Sinjirh Rausha Vs. Shivam Sundarani Promoters Pvt. Ltd &
Anr. 2009(2) SCC 363 P-6, 14, 22 and 23 it is contended that learned
Special Judge ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before interfering with the order of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate which had enured in favour of the petitioner.
During the course of hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the private respondent have contended that impugned orders may be set aside and matters may be remanded back to the Revisional Court for re-hearing of the revision petitions, after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner.
With the consent of parties, impugned orders are set aside. The
Revisional Court shall re-hear the learned counsels for both the parties and dispose of the revisions in accordance with law, expeditiously.
Parties to appear before the Revisional Court on 10.08.2017.
Dasti.
!4 A.K. J JULY 199 2017 gb
19.07.2017 Respondent filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.0 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate which was dismissed vide order dated 10th November, 2016. Respondent preferred a revision petition before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Act against the said order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Learned
Special Judge had remanded the matter back to the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate for considering the matter afresh vide order dated 10.03.2017. However, an observation has been made in para 21 of the said order to the effect: "complaint and documents disclose cognizable offences which require to be investigated by the police".
Grievance of the petitioner is that without hearing the petitioner such observation have been made with which, learned Metropolitan
Magistrate is bound to be influenced. By placing reliance on Rajthu
Raj Sinjirh Rausha Vs. Shivam Sundarani Promoters Pvt. Ltd &
Anr. 2009(2) SCC 363 P-6, 14, 22 and 23 it is contended that learned
Special Judge ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before interfering with the order of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate which had enured in favour of the petitioner.
During the course of hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the private respondent have contended that impugned orders may be set aside and matters may be remanded back to the Revisional Court for re-hearing of the revision petitions, after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner.
With the consent of parties, impugned orders are set aside. The
Revisional Court shall re-hear the learned counsels for both the parties and dispose of the revisions in accordance with law, expeditiously.
Parties to appear before the Revisional Court on 10.08.2017.
Dasti.
!4 A.K. J JULY 199 2017 gb
JUDGMENT