Full Text
Translation output
>•
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 4427/2016
RADHIKA OSWAL
Represented by:
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 4427/2016
RADHIKA OSWAL
Represented by:
VERSUS
STATE & ANR.
CRL.M.C. 4431/2016
PANKAJ OSWAL
PANKAJ OSWAL
VERSUS
Petitioner Mr. V.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Ms. Ruchira Gupta and Mr. Sakat Bhushan, Advs.
Respondent Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI Naveen, PS B.K. Road.
Petitioner Mr. V.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Ms. Ruchira Gupta and Mr. Sakat Bhushan, Advs.
STATE & ANR. Respondent Represented by: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with
SI Naveen, PS B.K. Road.
Respondent Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI Naveen, PS B.K. Road.
Petitioner Mr. V.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Ms. Ruchira Gupta and Mr. Sakat Bhushan, Advs.
STATE & ANR. Respondent Represented by: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with
SI Naveen, PS B.K. Road.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER o/o 28.11.2016 Crl.M.A. 18507/2016 in Crl.M.C. 4427/2016
Crl.M.A. 18515/2016 in Crl.M.C. 4431/2016 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.C.4427/2016 & Crl.M.A. 18506/2016 Crl.M.C. 4431/2016 & Crl.M.A. 18514/2016
! The main relief sought by the petitioners isthat no coercive action be
2016:DHC:9078 '4 taken against the petitioners. On the Court pointing out that for the said relief, the petitioners are required to file applications for anticipatory bail, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the two petitions with liberty to file petitions for anticipatory bail. Leave and liberty granted reserving the right ofthe petitioners to file a petition for quashing of FIR, if need so arises, at appropriate stage.
Petitions and applications are dismissed as withdrawn.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
NOVEMBER 28, 2016 'v mittaP 2016:DHC:9078
ORDER o/o 28.11.2016 Crl.M.A. 18507/2016 in Crl.M.C. 4427/2016
Crl.M.A. 18515/2016 in Crl.M.C. 4431/2016 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.C.4427/2016 & Crl.M.A. 18506/2016 Crl.M.C. 4431/2016 & Crl.M.A. 18514/2016
! The main relief sought by the petitioners isthat no coercive action be
2016:DHC:9078 '4 taken against the petitioners. On the Court pointing out that for the said relief, the petitioners are required to file applications for anticipatory bail, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the two petitions with liberty to file petitions for anticipatory bail. Leave and liberty granted reserving the right ofthe petitioners to file a petition for quashing of FIR, if need so arises, at appropriate stage.
Petitions and applications are dismissed as withdrawn.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
NOVEMBER 28, 2016 'v mittaP 2016:DHC:9078
JUDGMENT