Jayaraj Charles Raj Kumar Vs. Oravel Stays (P) Ltd. & Ors.

Jayaraj Charles Raj Kumar Vs. Oravel Stays (P) Ltd. & Ors.Case No. CR/157/21

30.09.2021

Present: None for the revisionist/accused.

It is 02.35 PM, none appeared on behalf of revisionist despite

several calls since morning. PF also not filed despite number of directions.

On the last date of hearing also, none appeared on behalf of revisionist. It

appears that revisionist is not interested in prosecuting the present revision

petition.

Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed in default.

Revision petition disposed of accordingly. TCR be sent back.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of order be uploaded on the website.

(Ajay Kumar Jain) Spl. Judge, NDPS/N. Delhi

30.09.2021

FIR No. 40/19PS Special CellState Vs. Ankush

30.09.2021

File taken up on separate applications moved on behalf ofaccusedone seeking summoning of witness no.5 and 8 to examine beforethe court on next date of hearing and other for producing the accused incourt on the next date of hearing.

Present: Sh. Ravinder Khandelwal, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.

None for applicant/accused.

Notice be issued on the application for summoning the

witnesses for examination for 04.10.2021.

As regards the application for production of accused, the same

stands allowed. Jail superintendent is directed to produce accused Ankush

on next date of hearing i.e. 06.10.2021 physically in court.



30.09.2021

CBN Vs Vinay Kumar Mishra & Anr. Crime No. P&I/Del/Seizure/ 01/21U/s 8, 21, 28, 29 OF NDPS ACT, 1985Case No. SC/255/2021

30.09.2021

Present: Ms. Mala Sharma, Advocate representing Sh. Satish

Aggarwala, SPP for CBN.

Both accused stated to be in JC.

IO Gaurav Sharma in person.

Fresh complaint filed. Let it be checked and registered as per

rules.

This complaint has been filed by a public servant in the

discharge of his duties. He has moved an application for dispensing with his

preliminary examination and for his exemption from personal appearance

on the ground that he remains busy in official duties and it is not possible

for him to attend the court on each and every date of hearing and that be

therefore allowed to be represented through the Special PP. In view of the

submissions made, the preliminary examination of the complainant is

dispensed with and he is exempted from personal appearance during trial.

I have perused the complaint and the documents filed.

As per the case of the CBN, in pursuance to the information

dated 5.3.21 manufactured Narcotic Drugs containing medicinal opium in

huge quantity i.e. Kamini Vidrawan Ras – 195 bottles, HabbEMumsik06

bottles, Barshasha 10 bottles on 05.03.2021 at Anand Vihar Railway

Station Bus Stand, New Delhi from the conscious possession of the above

named vide Panchnama dated 05.03.2021.

During followup action from the premises/shop of accused

No. 2 Kishan Das Proprietor of the said firm, the officers of Central Bureau

of Narcotics, New Delhi searched the premises of M/s Vagbhatt Remedies,

Johripur, New Delhi and recovered and seized various manufactured

narcotic drugs containing medicinal opium in huge quantity i.e. Barshasha

4044 Bottles, Shakrina 81 Bottles, Habbe Hamal – 132 Bottles, Habbe

Jadwar 828 Bottles, Habbe Pechish 672 bottles, Imsaki 211 Bottles, Habbe

Surfa 72 Bottles, Habbe Sumaq 96 bottles, Majun Falak Sair 31bottles,

Nozina350 Bottles, Habbe Quwwati472 Bottles, Habbe Mumsiki 845

Bottles, Jati Phaladi Vati Stambak 1871 Bottles, Kamini Vidrawan Ras1136

Bottles, Goli Wajid Ali Shah7218 Bottles, Loose Tablets said to be Kamini

Vidrawan Ras and Jati Phaladi Vati Stambak 180 gm alongwith 302 empty

bottles of Kamini Vidrawan Ras and Jati Phaladi Vati Stambak. As per the

case of CBN, both accused are involved in illicit diversion of manufacturing

Narcotics Drugs containing medicinal opium and they were found in

conscious possession of the contraband and same was trying to be diverted

illegally.

I take cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 8/21/28/29

NDPS Act.

Put up the case for supplying of copy of complaint and

documents to the accused persons on the next date of hearing i.e. on

12.10.2021. Jail superintendent is directed to produce the accused persons

namely Vinay Kumar Mishra and Kishan Das physically on next date of

hearing.

Copy of the order be sent to jail superintendent for

compliance. Copy of order be uploaded on the website.

(Ajay Kumar Jain) Special Judge/NDPSNew Delhi/30.09.2021

FIR No. 274/2020PS Special CellState Vs. Vikas Rathi & Ors.

30.09.2021


None for applicant/accused Vikas Rathi.

It is 02.30 PM. Despite several calls, none appeared on behalf

of accused.

This is an application for permission to accused to appear for

online practical exams through Central Jail however reply is already

received that IGNOU center in the jail premises does not have an online

examination center with facility for appearing online exams for inmates; no

intimation is received for the abovementioned accused regarding online

examination. Furthermore, the counsel prayed for permitting the accused to

appear in custody to examination center however no such examination

center is mentioned in the application.

As none appeared for accused today, this application is

dismissed in default.

Copy of this order be sent to accused in jail.



30.09.2021

NCB Vs. Devesh VasaCase No. VIII/46/DZU/2021

30.09.2021

Present: Sh. Rajesh Manchanda, SPP for NCB through VC.

Sh. Vikram Hegde, Ld. Counsel for accused Devesh Vasa

through VC.

Ld. Counsel submits that this is an application for conducting

legal meeting with accused Devesh Vasa.

Heard. At request, Sh. Vikram Hegde, Ld. Counsel for accused

Devesh Vasa is allowed to conduct legal meeting with the accused for 15

minutes today itself at 05.00 PM at NCB office.

Application disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel as well as to

IO. Copy of order be uploaded on the website.


30.09.2021

SC No. 9077/2016FIR No.14/2014PS Spl Cell State Vs Georgii Dedov @ Gausa @ Gosa & Ors.

30.09.2021

Present: Sh Ravindra Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.

Accused persons namely Georgii Dedov, Anil Kumar @ Lucky

and Anil Kumar @ Nillu produced from JC through VC.

Accused Dan Singh absent.

Sh Vikas Gautam, Ld. Counsel for accused Georgii Dedov

through VC.

Sh Sumit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Anil Kumar @

Lucky.

A request has been received by the IO stating that he seeks

time to execute process u/s 82 CrPC against accused Dan Singh.

In view of the submissions, issue fresh process u/s 82 CrPC

against accused Dan Singh, returnable for 20.12.2021.

Copy of the order be uploaded on the website of New Delhi

District.


30.09.2021

FIR No. 91/21PS R.K. PuramState Vs. Ram Chander Palei & Ors. SC No. 242/21

30.09.2021


All accused persons are produced from JC through VC.

IO is not present today.

Notice be issued to IO to appear in person for the next date of

hearing.

Put up for consideration on 12.10.2021. Jail superintendent is

directed to produce accused persons through VC on the said date.

Copy of the order be sent to jail superintendent for

compliance.

Copy of the order be uploaded on the website of New Delhi

District.


30.09.2021

SC No. 166/2019NCB Vs Gauri Shanker Jaiswal

30.09.2021

Present: Sh Rajesh Manchanda, Ld. SPP for NCB through VC.

Accused produced from JC through VC.

Case is today listed for prosecution evidence however due to

administrative instructions, PE could not be led hence witnesses are not

called.

Accordingly, list this case for prosecution evidence on

17.12.2021.

Order be uploaded on Delhi District Court Website.


30.09.2021

FIR No. 412/16PS Sarojini NagarState Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors.SC No. 41/17

30.09.2021

Present: Sh. Ravindra Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.

All accused persons are present on bail physically.

Ms Srishti Pawar, Ld. Counsel for accused persons namely

Sukhbir Singh, Barkha and Usha appeared physically.

IO is not present today. Let IO be called for the next date of

hearing.

Accordingly, list this case for arguments on charge qua

accused Usha on 08.11.2021.



30.09.2021

SC No. 8940/2016NCB Vs Filipe Carlos Massango

30.09.2021

Present: Sh P C Aggarwal, Ld. SPP for NCB through VC.

Accused Filipe Carlos Massango is PO.

Accused Basiwa Karuma Butu on bail and present physically.

Accused Chibuzo Bathlomew Ifekudu on bail and present

through VC.

Sh. Vikas Gautam Ld. Counsel for accused with accused

Chibuzo Bathlomew Ifekudu through VC.

Sh. Sumit Sharma Ld. Counsel for accused Basirwa Karuma

Butu.

Case is today listed for prosecution evidence however due to

administrative instructions, PE could not be led hence witnesses are not

called.

Accordingly, list this case for prosecution evidence on

13.12.2021.



30.09.2021

NCB Vs. Raja Jaswant Singh SandhuCase No. VIII/03/DZU/2021

30.09.2021

Present: Sh. Mukesh Malik, SPP for NCB through VC.

Sh. Swapnil Krishna, Ld. Counsel for accused Raja Jaswant

Singh Sandhu.

Ld. SPP submits that he will file reply during the course of the

day with advance copy to Ld. Counsel for accused.

Accordingly, list this matter for arguments on 06.10.2021.



30.09.2021

NCB Vs. Bartholomew Okoh @ PrinceCase No. SC/37/17

30.09.2021


Sh. Deepak Ghai, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused Abdul

Rehman.

Part arguments heard. Let IO be called.

List this application for 16.10.2021.



30.09.2021

NCB Vs. John Eze @ JohnsonCase No. VIII/26/DZU/2017

30.09.2021


Sh. Amit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused John Eze.

Ld. SPP seeks some more time to file reply.

Accordingly, at request, list this application for reply and

arguments on 12.10.2021.



30.09.2021

FIR No. 62/15PS Special CellState Vs. Firozuddin @ Bittu & Anr. Case No. SC/9343/16

30.09.2021


Both accused present on bail physically.

Sh. Sumit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Shaju.

At request of Ld. Defence counsel, list this case for recording of

statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC on 22.10.2021.



30.09.2021

SC No. 520/19NCB Vs. Sher Ahmad Sherzai

30.09.2021


Sh. J.S. Kushwaha, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused Sher

Ahmad Sherzai.

Ld. SPP submits that proper SC number is not filed therefore,

he could not file the reply.

Ld. Counsel for accused submits that the SC number in this

case is wrongly mentioned as 4205/19 however the correct SC number is

520/19.

List this application for reply and arguments on 16.10.2021.



30.09.2021

NCB Vs. Pankaj GuptaCase No. VIII/53/DZU/2021

30.09.2021

Present: Ms. Tanya Harnal, Ld. Counsel for accused Pankaj Gupta

Ld. Counsel submits that this is an application for conducting

legal meeting with accused Aakash Mehra.

Heard. At request, Sh. Vaibhav Mahajan and Ms. Tanya

Harnal, Ld. Counsels for accused Aakash Mehra is allowed to conduct legal

meeting with the accused for 15 minutes today itself at 05.00 PM at NCB

office.

Copy of the order be given dasti.



30.09.2021

FIR No. 57/19PS Special CellState Vs. Md. Sufiyan & Ors.Case No. SC/438/19

30.09.2021


Accused Mohd. Sufiyan and Mohd. Ismail produced from JC.

Accused Mohd. Hasim present on interim bail.

Accused Manoj Kumar Das absent.

Sh. J.S. Kushwaha, Ld. Counsel for accused Mohd. Ismail.

Sh. M.M. Sana, Ld. Counsel for accused Mohd. Sufiyan.

Sh. Karan Sinha, Ld. Counsel for accused Hasim @ Neta.

Sh. Chandan Kumar Singh, Advocate, present on behalf of Sh. Alakh

Alok Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj Kumar Das submitted that his

application for seeking modification of order dated 16.09.2021 is also listed for

today and requested that inadvertently he could not inform the court regarding the

fact that the application for extension of surrender has been dismissed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.07.2021 in SLP No. 3243/2021. The

said application accordingly disposed of. Ld. Counsel now submits that he is not

getting any instructions from the accused therefore, requests to be discharged from

this case. Accordingly, Sh. Alakh Alok Srivastava, Advocate is discharged.

Ld. Addl. PP submits that NBW issued against accused Manoj Kumar

Das found unexecuted. The surety was also not found at the address mentioned in

the surety bond. Accused Manoj Kumar Das is deliberately avoiding NBWs hence,

process u/s 82 Cr.PC be initiated.

Accordingly, issue process u/s 82 Cr.PC against accused Manoj

Kumar Das. His surety bonds stand forfeited. Issue warrant of attachment against

the surety of accused Manoj Kumar Das.

List this case for recording of statement of process server on

22.11.2021. Copy of order be uploaded on the website.


30.09.2021

At this stage, it is noticed that an application filed on behalf of

accused Mohd. Ismail for obtaining signatures on the cheque is also pending.

List this application also on the date fixed i.e. 22.11.2021.


30.09.2021

FIR No. 601/2020PS NarainaState Vs. Kishore Majhi

30.09.2021


Sh. Rakesh Sharma alongwith Sh. Anurag Purohit and

Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Ld. counsels for applicant/accused Kishore

Majhi.

Ld. Addl. PP submits that he has not received any instructions

from IO today also and one last opportunity be given.

Accordingly, list this application for anticipatory bail for

29.10.2021. In the meanwhile, interim order to continue. IO is also directed

to remain present on the said date. Despite directions, IO is not present

today therefore, DCP is directed to ensure the presence of IO on the said

date.



30.09.2021

NCB Vs. Deep Chand Kumar & Anr.Case No. SC/213/19

30.09.2021


Accused Deep Chand Kumar produced from JC through VC.

Accused Gaurav Mendiratta produced from JC physically.

Sh. Y.K. Saxena, Ld. Counsel for accused Deep Chand Kumar.

Sh. Sumit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Gaurav

Mendiratta.

No PW called for today due to administrative instructions

however Ld. Counsels submit that PE could be led on physical dates.

List this case for PE for 28.10.2021.

List the pending application regarding beating of accused Deep

Chand Kumar in jail for 12.10.2021. Jail Superintendent is directed to

produce accused persons on the next date of hearing. Jail Superintendent is

directed to produce accused Deep Chand Kumar physically on 12.10.2021

also.

At this stage, Sh. Sumit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused

Gaurav Mendiratta filed an application for allowing the accused to take the

books i.e. Delhi Jail Manual and Legal Glossary however Ld. Addl. PP

submits that before allowing the same, let a report be called from jail

superintendent in this regard. Accordingly, jail superintendent is directed to

file a report in this regard for 12.10.2021.

Copy of this order alongwith copy of bail application be sent to

jail superintendent for compliance. Copy of order be uploaded on the

website.


30.09.2021

1

Directorate of Enforcement v. Sajjan Kumar ECIR/DLZO-1/09/2019 dated 23.12.2019

30.09.2021

Present: Sh. Nitesh Rana, Ld. SPP for ED through VC. Accused Sajjan Kumar produced in ED custody.

Sh. Amit Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused Sajjan Kumar through VC.

Sh. Hemant/IO, AD, PMLA through VC.

Proceedings done through video conferencing. It is certified that link was working properly and no

grievance was agitated by either of the counsel in this regard.

By way of the instant composite order, I propose to

dispose of two separate applications i.e one application moved on

behalf of the IO seeking ED custody remand of accused Sajjan Kumar

for a further period of 8 days and another application moved on behalf

of applicant/accused for grant of interim bail for a period of two days.

On behalf of ED , it is argued that layering of money is to be fully

unraveled, voluminous data is to be analysed, 10 persons have been

summoned and accused is required to be confronted with them, role

of other accused persons is also required to be unearthed thus further

sustained custodial interrogation of accused is required.

Ld. defence counsel has vehemently opposed the

remand application submitting that ECIR was registered on

23.12.2019 and accused Sajjan Kumar has been cooperating in the

on going investigations conducted so far. It is submitted that accused

was even summoned on earlier occasions and he remained

cooperative with the pending investigations. It is submitted that all the

incriminating material has already been seized by the Directorate of

Enforcement and now since the accused has moved an application

against Directorate of Enforcement officers, they are acting vindictive

against him and hence, no ground is made out for extension of ED

remand.

2

Considering the intricate nature of investigation required

in the instant matter, examination of the voluminous material seized

from the premises of the accused and the requirement of his

confrontation with the other summoned persons, I am of the

considered opinion that ED has set out a case for extension of ED

remand of accused Sajjan Kumar.

Accused Sajjan Kumar is further remanded to ED

custody till 04.10.2021.

Medical examination of accused be conducted before

and after the ED remand.

Application is disposed off accordingly.

An application has also been moved on behalf of

applicant/accused Sajjan Kumar for grant of interim bail for a period

of two days to attend the Tehrvi ritual of his mother, who has expired

on 20.09.2021, which is scheduled to be held on 01.10.2021 at SDMC

Community Hall, Janak Puri, as mentioned in the application.

Ld. Special PP for ED has vehemently opposed the

instant bail application arguing that accused Sajjan Kumar has been

arrested on 25.09.2021 on the allegations of money laundering and

causing duty drawback to the tune of Rs.32,25,62,967/-. It is

submitted that nature and gravity of accusations against the

applicant/accused are very serious and if applicant/accused is

released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may tamper with the

evidence/witnesses or even threaten them. It is further submitted that

custodial interrogation of applicant/accused is in progress; the

movement of proceeds of crime was traced and the accused is aware

of the line of investigation; during his custodial interrogation, he was

asked questions regarding trail of the proceeds of crime and if

applicant/accused is released on interim bail on whatsoever grounds,

it would hamper the fair course of investigation. It is submitted that

ever since the accused got to know about the ED investigation, he has

been diverting proceeds of crime and selling properties in his name.

Ld. SPP submitted that in view of the investigation conducted and

evidence collected so far, the applicant/accused does not deserve to

3

be released on interim bail.

Considering the crucial juncture of pending

investigations, I am of the considered opinion that releasing the

applicant/accused Sajjan Kumar on interim bail would be prejudicial

to the cause of on going investigations. Consequently, I do not find

any merits in the interim bail application of accused Sajjan Kumar.

The same is accordingly dismissed.

However, considering the ground cited in the application,

the concerned Investigating Officer is directed to take the

applicant/accused Sajjan Kumar in custody to SDMC Community Hall,

A1, Ground Floor Janak Puri, Delhi to attend the Tehrvi of his late

mother on 01.10.2021 from 7.00 a.m to 3.00 p.m ( excluding the time

of journey). Concerned IO is directed to make necessary

arrangements in this regard.

With these observations, applications stand disposed off

accordingly.

Copy of the order be given dasti to all the concerned.

(Dharmender Rana) ASJ-02, NDD/PHC/New Delhi

30.09.2021

DHARMENDER RANA

Digitally signed by DHARMENDER RANA Date: 2021.09.30 14:15:43 +05'30'

Case No. 24/2018 Harnam Singh Vs. Salman Khan 30.09.2021

Present: None.

Proceedings done through video conferencing.

Put up for further proceedings on 10.01.2022.


30.09.2021

At this stage, Sh. Jatin Bhatt, Ld. Counsel for

complainant appeared through VC. He is apprised of the NDOH.


30.09.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


DHARMENDER RANA


Case No. 112/2019 R. N. Mathur Vs. State. 30.09.2021

Present: Appellant is reported to be expired.

Sh. Diwanshu Sehgal, Ld. Counsel for appellant

through VC.

Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State through VC.


It is certified that link was working properly and no


Verification report of death of appellant R. N. Mathur

received with the report that address of the appellant is incorrect. Ld.

Counsel for appellant is directed to file a fresh address of the

appellant before the NDOH.

After filing of fresh address, issue fresh notice to the

IO/SHO concerned alongwith copy of fresh address of the appellant

with the directions to verify the factum of the death of the appellant

R.N. Mathur and file report in this regard on the NDOH.

Put up for report on 02.11.2021.


30.09.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


Arvind Singh Vs. Prateek Sharma CR No. 33/2021 Case No. 228/21 30.09.2021

Present: Revisionist in person.


It is submitted by the revisionist that the matter has

been settled between the parties.

At the specific request of the revisionist, matter is listed

for recording of statement regarding the settlement on 01.10.2021.


30.09.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


SEBI Vs. GCA Marketing P. Ltd. Case No. 19/2018 30.09.2021

Present: Ms. Gourisha Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for SEBI through

VC.

Accused no.1 is a company.

Sh. Yashvir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused persons

alongwith accused no.3 Gurdeep Singh through VC.




An application seeking exemption from personal

appearance has been filed on behalf of accused no.2. Amarjeet

Singh. Heard and allowed for today only.

At the request, matter is listed for arguments on charge

on 12.01.2022.


30.09.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


Case No. 65/2019 State of Telangana Vs. Gulab Kothari & Ors. 30.09.2021

Present: Ms. Anita, Ld. Advocate is present on behalf of State

through VC.

Accused no.2 Milap Kothari is stated to be expired.

Other accused persons are absent.

Sh. S.P. Kaushal, Ld. Counsel for all accused through

VC.




Ld. Advocate for State filed an application seeking

adjournment. Heard and allowed.

Let court notice be issued to the absentee accused for

the NDOH.

At request, put up for arguments on charge on

18.01.2022.


30.09.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 38/2020 State Vs. Sushil Shah & Ors. 30.09.2021

Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State through VC.

Accused persons namely Sushil Shah, Meena and

Santosh present on bail with Ld. Counsel Sh. Anand

Mishra through VC.




Put up for arguments on charge on 20.01.2022.


30.09.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 88/2017 PS Special Cell State Vs. Julfikar Alam & Ors. 30.09.2021

Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State through VC.

Accused persons namely Julfikar Alam, Deepak

Mandal and Uttam Mandal present on bail with Ld.

Counsel Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh.




No PW present.

Put up for PE on 22.02.2022.


30.09.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


CR No. 84/2019 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Sanjeev Arora & Anr. 30.09.2021

Present: Ms. Rhythm Aggarwal, Ld. Proxy counsel for petitioner

through VC.

None for respondent.




Neither the main counsel for the Petitioner nor the

Respondent is present, put up for arguments on 26.11.2021.


30.09.2021

At this stage, Ms. Himani Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for

respondent appeared through VC. She is apprised of the NDOH.


30.09.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


DHARMENDER RANA


CR No. 131/2019 Mukesh Khurana Vs. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal 30.09.2021

Present: None for petitioner.

Ms. Rhythm Aggarwal, Ld. Proxy Counsel for

respondent through VC.


Neither the main counsel for the Respondent nor the

Petitioner is present, put up for arguments on 26.11.2021.


30.09.2021

At this stage, Ms. Himani Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for

petitioner appeared through VC. She is apprised of the NDOH.


30.09.2021

DHARMENDER RANADigitally signed by DHARMENDER RANA Date: 2021.09.30 13:19:26 +05'30'

DHARMENDER RANA


Case No. 400/2015 Software Technology Park of India Vs. State 30.09.2021

Present: Sh. Amit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for revisionist through VC.

Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State/R1 through VC.

Respondent no.2 remain unserved.




Ld. Counsel for revisionist filed an affidavit regarding

service of the respondent no.2 in terms of order dated 12.01.2021

intimating the court that respondent is not traceable. However, no

report received from the process serving agency.

In view of the same, let fresh notice be issued to the

respondent no.2 on filing of PF/ RC/AD as well as through

publication for the NDOH.

Put up for further proceedings on 14.12.2021.


30.09.2021

DHARMENDER RANADigitally signed by DHARMENDER RANA Date: 2021.09.30 13:19:53 +05'30'

State v. Khushal Kumar Kundra FIR No. 261/2015 PS Naraina U/s 419/420/463/464/465/467/468/471/34 IPC

30.09.2021

Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State through VC. Ms. Indu Kaul, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused through VC. Proceedings done through video conferencing. It is certified that link was working properly and no


Present is an application moved on behalf of

applicant/accused for grant of bail.

IO has sought time to file reply to the instant application.

As prayed, list the bail application for reply and

arguments on 01.10.2021.


30.09.2021.

DHARMENDER RANA


State v. Quateel Siddique FIR No. 54/2011 PS Special Cell 30.09.2021

Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State through VC. None for applicant/accused Mohd. Adil. Proceedings done through video conferencing. It is certified that link was working properly and no



applicant/accused Mohd. Adil seeking directions to the Jail

Superintendent to provide proper medical treatment to the

applicant/accused or to send him to the hospital.

Since none is present on behalf of applicant/accused,

list the application for consideration on 01.10.2021.


30.09.2021.

DHARMENDER RANA


State v. Devender @ Pappu FIR No. 57/2020 PS Kishangarh U/s 302/307/120B/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act. 30.09.2021 Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl PP for the State through VC.

Sh. S. P. Kaushal, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused through VC

Proceedings done through video conferencing. It is certified that link was working properly and no grievance

was agitated by either of the counsel in this regard.


applicant/accused seeking extension of interim bail.

Ld. counsel for applicant/accused has placed heavy reliance

upon the order dated 24.09.2021 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W. P.

(C ) No. 4921/2021 titled Court on its own motion v. State (Govt. of NCT of

Delhi). It is submitted that in view of the same, there is an automatic

extension of interim bail granted to the applicant/accused.

However, on the contrary, Ld. Addl. PP vehemently disputes

the same and submitted that in the above relied order dated 24.09.2021,

there is no direction of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court regarding any automatic

extension. It is submitted that vide order dated 24.09.2021, Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi has simply disposed off the bail application/miscellaneous

application argued before it. It is forcefully argued that had the Hon’ble Delhi

High Court intended an automatic extension, it would have been clearly

mentioned therein, as was done on the previous occasions.

At this juncture, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused submits

that he be permitted to seek clarifications from the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi in this regard. He accordingly seeks a short adjournment.

Accordingly, put up for arguments in the matter on

08.10.2021.

Till then, interim bail of applicant/accused is extended on the

same terms and conditions.

(Dharmender Rana) ASJ-02, NDD/PHC/New Delhi 30.09.2021.

DHARMENDER RANA


State v. Rahul Kumar FIR No. 196/2021

U/s 420 IPC & 66D IT Act PS Special Cell

30.09.2021

Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State through VC..

Sh. Ankit Tandan, Ld. counsel for applicant through VC.


applicant/accused for grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that

applicant is apprehending his arrest in the present case. It is

submitted that applicant/accused has nothing to do with the alleged

offence and he has been falsely named in the FIR. It is submitted that

matter between the complainant and the applicant/accused has

already been settled amicably vide MOU dated 23.09.2021 and the

applicant/accused has already paid the cheated amount of

Rs.40,000/- to the complainant.

It is further submitted by Ld. counsel that his office boy,

who is a minor, is infact the person behind the entire incident. It is

submitted that the actual facts were told to the complainant and then

the matter was compromised with him. It is thus prayed that

applicant/accused may be granted anticipatory bail.

Ld. Addl. PP has vehemently opposed the bail

application arguing that applicant/accused is a part of criminal

syndicate indulged in cheating gullible citizens on the pretext of giving

money against payments made through credit cards on the same day

transaction with nominal charges of 1.25%. Since the complainant

needed cash money, he logged in the website Paycards.in on

facebook and made two transactions of Rs. 20,000/- each but he

never received the money as claimed by the crime syndicate. The

mobile Number 8810442674 was used for using Customer IP

address 47.30.215.83 which was found registered in the name of

applicant Rahul Kumar and as per the CDR, mobile numbers

89291083325 and 8810442674 were used in the same device and

were used in the alleged cheating. The offence in the present case

has been committed in a highly technical manner involving several e-

platforms, payment gateways and applications. It is argued that

Custodial interrogation of the applicant would be required to unearth

the exact modus operandi and involvement of other accused, if any.

The mobile phones and SIM cards used in the offence are also to be

recovered from the applicant/accused.

Applicant/accused is a part of criminal syndicate

involved in duping gullible citizens. The modus operandi of the alleged

offence indicates deft execution and meticulous planning. It appears

highly improbable that a 16 years old ‘office boy’ can on his own not

only design a fraudulent website but can also plan on his own to

siphon off the defalcated money through a complex maze of web

transactions, e-platforms, payment gateways webapplications and

fake accounts. The mobile phone used in the commission of the

alleged offence connects the applicant/accused with the alleged

crime. The plea of compromise also goes against the

applicant/accused as he is evidently attempting to influence the fair

course of investigation.

Considering the seriousness of allegations and the

nature of investigations required in the instant matter, I am of the

considered opinion that the instant bail application is bereft of any

merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Application is disposed off accordingly.

Instant order be uploaded on the court website

immediately.

(Dharmender Rana) ASJ-02, NDD/PHC/New Delhi 30.09.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04, NEW DELHI DISTRICT

PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

Criminal Revision Number : 145/2021CC No. 41296/16U/s 138 N.I.Act

Sh. Jai Bhagwan Sharma,s/o Late Sh. Mul Chand Sharma,r/o 461/12, Khoti Sadk Ali Vidhya Nagar,Swarg Ashram Road,Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. ................... Petitioner/Revisionist

Versus

Sh.B.K. Malik,S/o Sh.N.K. Malik,r/o 85, Star Apartments,Sector-9, RohiniNew Delhi. ................... Respondent

Date of receipt of file in this Court : 22.03.2021

Date when arguments were heard : 17.09.2021

Date of Order : 30.09.2021

Final Order : DISMISSED

ORDER Announced through VC from residence.

1. The present Revision Petition is preferred against theCR no. 145/21 Jai Bhagwan Sharma Vs. B.K. Malik Page 1 of 9

impugned order(s) dated 28.07.2018 and 22.01.2020 passed by the

the learned Trial Court and its predecessor court in proceedings arising

out of CC No. 41296/16 in a matter titled as B.K.Malik Vs. Jai

Bhagwan Sharma whereby learned trial court ( Mr. Ashwani Panwar,

learned MM-04, PHC, New Delhi ) dismissed the application of the

petitioner/ revisionist/ accused under section 315 Cr.P.C vide order

dated 22.01.2020 and prior to it learned predecessor of the said court

( Ms. Vijeta Singh Rawat, the then learned MM-06, PHC, New Delhi )

vide order dated 28.07.2018 closed the defence evidence of the

petitioner/revisionist/accused and adjourned the matter for awaiting

FSL result report for 08.10.2018.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the

impugned orders dated 28.07.2018 and 22.01.2020 on the following

grounds :-

i) that the impugned orders passed by the learned trial court

were erroneous in nature and learned trial court has failed to

appreciate the principle of natural justice as defence evidence was

closed without the consent and recording separate statement of the

revisionist/accused which, if not set aside, may result in miscarriage of

justice ;

CR no. 145/21 Jai Bhagwan Sharma Vs. B.K. Malik Page 2 of 9

ii) that the impugned orders also suffers from material

irregularity as before dismissing the application of the revisionist u/s

315 Cr.P.C learned trial court without granting a fair opportunity to the

revisionist to lead evidence and also has not appreciated the crucial

evidence supported with it.

iii) that the learned trial court has failed to objectively exercise its

judicial power and acted mechanically in passing the impugned orders

by dismissing the right of the accused to lead defence evidence.

iv) that as per the case of the revisionist, the respondent/

complainant had already received the payment of the cheque in

question in the year 2007-2008 and misused the cheque in dispute

only to harass and extract money ; and in the cross examination of

complainant/respondent he himself admitted that “I do not have any

other claim except the present cheque amount from the accused”.

v) that both the learned trial courts have failed to appreciate the

submissions addressed before the closure of defence evidence of

accused/revisionist and also at the time of disposal of the application

u/s 315 Cr.P.C, hence, there is ambiguity and infirmity in the said

orders.

vi) that the impugned orders are contrary to the views taken


by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in array of judgments and if the

revision petition is not allowed, then revisionist will suffer irreparable

loss and injury which can not be compensated with the money.

3 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent argued that

there is no illegality or ambiguity in the impugned orders passed by the

learned trial courts ; on both the occasions, separate detailed orders

were passed in presence of accused and after taking into

consideration his submissions, which are self speaking orders and well

reasoned for dismissal of the opportunity to lead defence evidence as

well as the application u/s 315 Cr. P.C.

3.1 Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that

revisionist/ accused is not only trying to mislead this court but the trial

court also, by taking the defence that the dates on the cheques in

question were altered by the complainant/respondent and not by him

(revisionist/accused) ; that during trial of the case complainant/

respondent was also cross examined on the said aspects, however,

the factum of the alteration on the cheques by the accused himself is

evident from the FSL results which were recently received pursuant to

the directions of the learned trial court.

3.2 It is stated that the accused is only playing hoodwink with the


courts, and using dilatory tactics to avoid the final adjudication of the

case ; that no such payment was ever made by the revisionist/accused

to the complainant at any point of time to discharge the legally

recoverable debt or his liability.

3.3 To rebutt the contentions of the accused/revisionist that he

was not granted opportunity to lead DE, learned counsel for the

complainant/respondent also highlighted the order dated 14.10.2014,

vide which learned trial court has asked the accused/revisionist to lead

his defence evidence and to file list of witnesses within ten days from

the date of such order on record. But no such list was filed, nor any

application was moved to summon any witness or any relevant record

in that regard to support his case.

3.4 Learned counsel further highlighted the order dated

28.07.2018 of the learned trial court to show that revisionist/accused

himself had stated that he does not wish to lead defence evidence in

support of his case. His oral statement in that regard is reflected in the

order sheet itself ; though, he preferred not to sign any separate

statement in absence of his counsel. Therefore, it is frivolous and

absolutely a false statement to say that accused was not granted

sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in support of his case.


3.5 It is thus prayed that the matter pertains to the year 2008,

sufficient opportunities were granted to the accused and he

deliberately have chosen not to lead defence evidence ; and the

present revision petition is based on false, concocted and fabricated

facts and it should be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. I have heard the submissions on behalf of learned counsel for

parties and have also carefully perused the record including the trial

court record i.e. CC No. 41296/16 in a matter titled as B.K.Malik Vs.

Jai Bhagwan Sharma .

5. At the outset, I have no hesitation to say it is fallacy to

contend that accused was not granted sufficient opportunity to lead

evidence in support of his defence or that there was violation of

principle of natural justice. The record of the learned trial court is

glaringly speaking in itself. It is evident that vide order dated

14.10.2014, the learned trial court has categorically asked the

revisionist/accused to lead defence evidence, if any, in support of his

case, with the directions to take steps within ten days in that regard by

filing list of witnesses. But un-disputedly, no such list was filed nor any

steps were taken to summon any witness nor to produce any relevant

record in support of his case, till the time a much calibrated and after


thought an application u/s 315 Cr.P.C was moved, that too much

belatedly.

6. And importantly, as is evident from the order dated

28.07.2018, after about four years or so, the revisionist/accused

himself stated in the open court that he does not wish to lead defence

evidence, and pursuant thereto his his right to lead defence evidence

was closed on his oral submission.

7. Therefore, in the facts highlighted above any contention to

say that accused/revisionist was not granted opportunity to lead DE

not be sustained factually, nor legally.

8. Next, even otherwise, it is evident that the documents in the

form of statements of accounts, which the accused wants to place in

support of his defence to say that entire amount had been paid,

mostly pertains to the transactions prior to issuances of the cheque in

dispute. The said documents would ex-facie have no bearing on the

outstanding debt or liability pursuant to which the cheque was issued.

9. In fact, there are also contradictions in the defence taken in

the cross examination of the complainant qua the payment allegedly

made by the accused, wherein nothing is mentioned about the

payment made through ICICI Bank, which the accused is harping upon


and is seeking liberty to produce the documents of the said bank on

record. Nor any such defence was taken when the Notice u/s 251

Cr.P.C was framed against accused/revisionist.

10. There is no gain saying that accused has indefeasible right to

lead evidence in his support but at the same time the exercised has to

be exercised within limitation and reasonable period. About seven

years have gone by since the time accused was put to notice to lead

defence evidence and no list of witnesses nor any document in support

of his defence was filed despite availing opportunities in that regard.

11. Now, at the stage, when about twelve and half years have

elapsed since the complaint case was filed, sufficient opportunities

were granted to the accused for his defence, and in the mean time

respondent/complainant has also expired, and matter is at the stage of

final disposal, FSL report is adverse to the case of the revisionist/

accused, in my considered opinion that the clock can not be put back

and matter be put to retrial ; reiterating at the cost of repetition, nor it is

a case of violation of principles of natural justice.

12. The present Revision Petition is premised on false and

frivolous grounds, filed merely with intent to delay the final outcome of

the matter. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands disposed


off as dismissed, being devoid of merits.

13. TCR be sent back along with the copy of the present order and

Revision file be consigned to record room.

14. Needless to mention here that nothing observed in this order

shall be a reflection on the merits of the case, the matter shall be

disposed off by the learned trial court without being influenced by any

observations made herein above.

15. The Revision file be consigned to record room as per rules.

Announced through VC from residence.

on 30.09.2021 (ANIL ANTIL)

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS/NEW DELHI

30.09.2021


IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHI

Bail Application No. 1975/2021 FIR No. 165/2021PS : Connaught Place u/s : 419/420/468/471/201/212/34 r/w 120-IPCState Vs. Anil Goel

30.09.2021 Proceedings are conducted through VC from residence.

File taken up today on an application as filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C

on behalf of applicant/accused Anil Goel for seeking anticipatory

bail, which is fixed for today.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Additional PP for the State alongwith IO

SI Niranjan Kumar.

Sh. Chaudhary Rabindra Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant/accused Anil Goel.

Arguments heard.

Re-notify for clarification, if any/orders on 01.10.2021.

(Anil Antil) ASJ-04/NDD/PHC/ND

30.09.2021

CR No. 345/2019FIR no. 448/2013PS Vasant Kunj (N)Dr. M.C. Pandey & Anr Vs. State NCT of Delhi.

30.09.2021

Proceedings are conducted through VC from residence.

Present : Sh. Piyush Rana, learned proxy counsel for the revisionist.

Sh. S.K.Kain, learned Addl. PP for the State /Respondent alongwith

IO SI Manoj.

There is continuous disruption at the end of learned counsel for the

revisionist. No effective hearing could take place.

At the same time, IO seeks time to go through the file to assist the

learned Addl. PP for the State on the NDOH.

Re notify for purpose already fixed on 28.01.2022.

TCR, if any, received be sent back and be re summoned one day

prior to the NDOH.

Order be uploaded on official website of Distt. Courts.


30.09.2021

CA No. 8535/2016Puri Oil Mills Ltd Vs. Food Inspector.

30.09.2021


Matter taken up today as on previous date of hearing i.e. on

27.05.2021, no physical or virtual hearing took place in view of the

directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and matter was adjourned

enbloc for today.

Present : Sh. Naveen Chawla, learned counsel for the revisionist

Sh. Kundan Lal, learned counsel for the respondent/Food Inspector.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that

Appellant no. 2 Harish Chander Singh has expired on 11.09.2021 and relevant

medical documents in that record has been sent to the court through e-mail

and/or Death certificate of R2 issued by the MCD will be filed in the court on or

before the NDOH.

Learned counsel for the Revisionist also seeks adjournment to file

amended memo of parties on or before the NDOH and prayed that matter be

listed for physical day roster for arguments on merits of the case.

As prayed, re notify for consideration / arguments on 21.10.2021.

TCR, if any, be sent back and be re summoned one day prior to

the NDOH.



30.09.2021

SC No. 101/2018FIR No. 78/2017PS Special CellState Vs. Quari Mohammad Hanif Samadi

30.09.2021





enbloc for today.

Present : Sh. S.K.Kain, learned Addl. PP for the State.

Accused produced through V/C by the Jail Authorities.

In view of the roster notified by the learned District & Sessions

Judge, PHC, New Delhi, matter is adjourned.\

Be put up for PE on 18.01.2022 AND 19.01.2022.

Prosecution witnesses, in terms of previous orders dated

24.03.2021, with IO and MHCM with case property, if any, be summoned

for the next date, in case the physical hearing of the courts is resumed and

the witnesses are permitted to be examined.

Order be uploaded on official website of Distt. Courts


30.09.2021

CA No. 25/2021Smt. Meghna Singh Vs. Sh. Harsha Raajan & Ors.

30.09.2021





enbloc for today.

Present : Sh. Rohit Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellant.

Process to the respondent could not be served due to insufficient

postal stamps on the envelope.

In facts, appellant is directed to take steps in terms of the previous

orders within two weeks from today.

Dasti in addition be given as prayed for and appellant is also at

liberty to serve the respondent through e-mail and file an affidavit in that regard.

Respondent is directed to file reply within four weeks from the date

of receipt of the petition with advance copy to opposite side.

Be put up for consideration on 21.02.2022.

TCR, if any, be summoned one day prior to the NDOH.



30.09.2021

CR No. 827/2019Ritesh Tiwari Vs. State

30.09.2021





enbloc for today.

Present : None for the revisionist despite repeated calls.

Sh. S.K. Kain, learned Addl. PP for the State/Respondent.

Issue e-court notice to the revisionist as well as to his counsel for

appearance on the NDOH.

In the mean time, notice be issued to IO with the directions to remain

present on the NDOH to assist the learned Add.PP for State/R.

Renotify for appearance/consideration/arguments on

19.02.2022.

TCR, if any be summoned one day prior to the NDOH.



30.09.2021

CA No. 132/2019FIR No. 515/14PS Delhi Cantt.Madan Lal Vs. State

30.09.2021





enbloc for today.

Present : Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.



appellant. No effective hearing could take place.



prior to the NDOH.



30.09.2021

CR No. 160/2020Rishi Raj Vs. State & Anr.

30.09.2021





enbloc for today.

Present : None for the revisionist despite repeated calls.


Issue e-court notice to the revisionist as well as to his counsel for

appearance on the NDOH.

In the mean time, notice be issued to IO with the directions to remain

present on the NDOH to assist the learned Add.PP for State/R.

Renotify for appearance/consideration/arguments on 21.02.2022.

TCR, if any be summoned one day prior to the NDOH.



30.09.2021

CR No. 12/2019CC No. 305/13PS Barakhamba RoadRitesh Tiwari & Anrs. Vs. State & Anrs.

30.09.2021





enbloc for today.

Present : Sh. Arvind Kumar Srivastawa, learned counsel for the revisionist.



revisionist. No effective hearing could take place.



prior to the NDOH.



30.09.2021

IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHIBail Application No. 1708/21 State Vs. Vikram SaxenaFIR No. 44/2020 PS: Connaught PlaceU/s. 420/467/468/471/34 IPC30.09.2021

Matter taken up through Video Conferencing from the

Residence.

This is the second application filed under Section 439 Cr. PC

on behalf of the applicant/accused Vikram Saxena for grant of regular bail.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Additional PP for the State.

Sh. Vikram Aggarwal, Advocate for the applicant/accused

(through V/C).

IO SI Naresh Kumar is also present (through V/C).

During the course of proceedings, the learned counsel for the

applicant submitted that the applicant has been granted bail in an another

matter bearing FIR No. 193.2020, registered at PS Special Cell, vide

which, 26 complaints were made against him.

The learned defence counsel seeks time to place on record

the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the said matter.

At request, the matter is adjourned for today.

Renotify on 06.10.2021 for arguments/consideration.

(Anil Antil) ASJ04/NDD/PHC/ND

IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHIBail Application No. 1707/21 State Vs. Vikram Saxena FIR No. 43/2020PS: Connaught PlaceU/s. 420/467/468/471/34 IPC30.09.2021


Residence.





(through V/C).











THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHI

Bail Application No. 1709/21 State Vs. Vikram Saxena FIR No. 45/2020PS: Connaught PlaceU/s. 420/467/468/471/34 IPC30.09.2021


Residence.

This is the second application filed under Section 439 Cr.

PC on behalf of the applicant/accused Vikram Saxena for grant of

regular bail.


Ms. Jyoti Rajshree, Advocate for the complainant

(through V/C).


(through V/C).


During the course of proceedings, the learned counsel for

the applicant submitted that the applicant has been granted bail in an

another matter bearing FIR No. 193.2020, registered at PS Special

Cell, vide which, 26 complaints were made against him.

The learned defence counsel seeks time to place on

record the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the said matter.




30.09.2021

IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHIBail Application No. 1710/21 State Vs. Vikram Saxena FIR No. 46/2020PS: Connaught Place U/s. 420/467/468/471/34 IPC30.09.2021


Residence.





(through V/C).











IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHI Ct. C. No. 8529/16 BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Omveer Singh & Anr. PS: Delhi Cantt. 30.09.2021


residence.

Present: Ms. Priyanka Tomar, Advocate for the complainant (through

V/C).

None has appeared on behalf of the accused persons despite

repeated calls.

A perusal of the record reveals that vide previous orders, the

proceedings under Section 82 Cr. PC were ordered to be initiated against

the accused but no steps have been taken by the complainant so far.

Taking note of the outbreak of Covid19 Pandemic and the

situation arisen pursuant thereto, in the interest of justice, one last

opportunity is granted to the complainant to take steps in terms of previosu

orders in that regard.

The Process Server along with the execution report be

submitted on or before the next date of hearing.

At request, be put up for consideration on 16.12.2021.


30.09.2021

IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHI Ct. C. No. 86/19 BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Mahavir Singh & Ors. PS: Vasant Kunj South30.09.2021


residence.

Present: Ms. Priyanka Tomar, Advocate for the complainant (through

V/C).

Neither the IO/SHO is present despite being specific orders.

Let, fresh notice be issued to the IO as well as to the SHO

concerned in terms of previous orders with directions to file fresh status

report in terms of previous orders on or before the next date of hearing.

Be put up for further consideration on 13.01.2022.


30.09.2021

IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHI SC No. 8/2020State Vs. Ismile & Anr. FIR No. 91/19 PS: Connaught Place30.09.2021


residence.


Both accused are stated to be on interim bail, however, are

absent despite repeated calls.

Accordingly, issue bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.

10,000/ against both the accused through IO/SHO concerned for the next

date of hearing.

In the meantime, let notice be also issued to the learned

counsels for the accused persons to appear and assist the court on the

next date of hearing.

Be put up for the purpose already fixed for 02.02.2022.


30.09.2021

IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHISC No. 140/17State Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors. FIR No. 150/13 PS: Inder Puri 30.09.2021


residence.


Accused Arvind Kumar is stated to be on bail, however,

absent today despite repeated calls.

Proceedings qua other accused are already abated.

Accordingly, issue bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.

10,000/ against accused Arvind Kumar through IO/SHO concerned for the


In the meantime, let notice be also issued to the learned

counsels for the accused persons to appear and assist the court on the


Be put up for PE on 19.02.2021.

Witnesses in terms of previous orders be summoned through

the IO/SO concerned for the next date of hearing.

IO and MHCM be also summoned for the next date.


30.09.2021

IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04, NEW DELHI DISTRICT

PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

Criminal Revision Number : 145/2021CC No. 41296/16U/s 138 N.I.Act

Sh. Jai Bhagwan Sharma,

VersusSh.B.K. Malik,

Date of receipt of file in this Court : 22.03.2021

Date when arguments were heard : 17.09.2021

Date of Order : 30.09.2021

Final Order : DISMISSED

Order Announced through VC from residence.

Present :Sh. Vishal Yadav and Sh. Vikas Saini, learned counsels

for the revisionist/accused.

None for the complainant/respondent.

Vide separate order, announced through VC from

residence, I am of the opinion that the present Revision Petition is

premised on false and frivolous grounds, filed merely with intent

to delay the final outcome of the matter. Accordingly, the present

revision petition stands disposed off as dismissed, being devoid

of merits.

TCR be sent back along with the copy of the present

order and Revision file be consigned to record room.

Needless to mention here that nothing observed in this

order shall be a reflection on the merits of the case, the matter

shall be disposed off by the learned trial court without being

influenced by any observations made herein above.

The Revision file be consigned to record room as per

rules.

Announced through VC from residence.

on 30.09.2021

(ANIL ANTIL) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS/NEW DELHI

30.09.2021

Jayaraj Charles Raj Kumar Vs. Oravel Stays (P) Ltd. & Ors.

Documents