NARAYAN DHINGRA
JITENDER RANA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI (NCT OF DELHI) – Respondent
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content so I can analyze it and generate the key points with the appropriate references.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
( 1 ) CRL. M. (A) 1605/2007 allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
( 2 ) CRL. M. C. 465/2007 this is a petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing of FIR No. 244/99 under sections 419,420,120b IPC, P. S. Narela, Delhi. Both the offences are compoundable and the parties have entered into a compromise. Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of FIR.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners state that though he intended to make an application before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for compounding of offences, however, the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate opined that since section 120b of IPC was also foisted on accused and 120b of IPC was not mentioned in the list of compoundable offences, therefore, he may not be able to pass an order compounding offence. No order has been passed by the learned Metropolitan magistrate rejecting the application for compounding of the offences. Section 120b of IPC is criminal conspiracy to commit an offence. Here in this case the allegations are of a criminal conspiracy to commit offence of cheating. When offence of cheating itself is compoundable, section 120b of IPC read with Section 420 of IPC be
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.