Raghavan Ramanujam v. State & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 19 May 2017 · 2017:DHC:8192
R. K. Gauba
CRL.M.C. 105/2013 & conn.
2017:DHC:8192
criminal appeal_dismissed Procedural

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of petitions with liberty to raise defenses regarding sanction validity, evidence sufficiency, and limitation before the trial court at the framing of notice stage under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

Full Text
Translation output
$-33 to 38 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 105/2013 & Crl.M.A.425/2013
RAGHAVAN RAMANUJAM Petitioner
Through; Mr.Tanveer Ahmad,Mr.Arjun Mahajan,Mr.Rohan Garg,Mr.Puneet
Relan & Mr.Satyam Chaudhary, Advs.
VERSUS
STATE& ANR. Respondent
Through: Mr.Amit Chadha,APP for the State.
Mr.Suderhsan Rajan Mr.Arjun Gadhoke& Mr.Ghanshyam Bhati, Advs.for R-2/complainant.
Mr.Arun Bhardwaj,Adv.for UOI.
CRL.M.C. 107/2013 & Crl.M.A.428/2013
CAPTAIN AM KARANDIKAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.Tanveer Ahmad,Mr.Arjun Advs.
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI&ANR. Respondent
Through: Mr.Amit Chadha,APP forthe State.
CRL.M.C.448/2013 & Crl.M.A. 1437/2013
AJAY B.NAIK Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rohit Rao N.& Mr.Devahuti Advs.
VERSUS
CRL.M.C.I05/20I3& conn. p^gg jof3 2017:DHC:8192
STATE NCT OF DELHI& ANR. Respondent
Through: Mr.Amit Chadha,APP for the State.
Gadhoke «fe Mr.Ghanshyam Bhati, W.P.(CRL)199/2011&Crl.M.A. 1680/2011
A M KARANDIKAR
Through: Mr.Tanveer Petitioner Ahmad,Mr.Arjun
Advs.
VERSUS
UOl
Through:
W.P.(CRL)1819/2012
AJAY B.NAIK
Through:
UOl &ORS.
VERSUS
Through:
Respondent Mr.Arun Bhardwaj,Adv.for UOl.
Advs.for complainant.
Petitioner Mr.Rohit Rao N.& Mr.Devahuti Advs.
Respondents Mr.Arun Bhardwaj,Adv.for UOl.
W.P.(CRL)1899/2010& Crl.M.A.21524/2010
RAGHVAN RAMANUJAM Petitioner
Through: Mr.Tanveer Ahmad,Mr.Arjun Relan& Mr.Satyam Chaudhary, Advs.
CRL.M.C. 105/2013& conn. Page2of3
Ei-t' ,r UOI AND ANR
VERSUS
Through:
Respondents Mr.Arun Bhardwaj,Adv.for UOI.
Gadhoke& Mr.Ghanshyuam Bhati, Advs.for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
19.05.2017 After some hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners in this batch of cases submitted, on instructions, that they may be permitted to withdraw these petitions with liberty to raise the contentions and defences urged here before the Trial Magistrate atthe stage offraming ofnotice under
Section 251 Cr.P.C., particularly on the question of validity ofthe sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C., sufficiency ofthe evidence and the question of limitation.
The learned counselforthe respondent-State submits he has nothing to say in the matter.
The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.
MAY 19,2017 nk R GAU CRL.M.C. 105/20J3& conn. Page 3of3
JUDGMENT