SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Del) 694

S.RAVINDRA BHAT
ROMI MALHOTRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Pawan Sharma, SAMIR S.VASIST, TANVEER AHMED MIR


S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks a quashing order in respect of criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to FIR No. 269/95, which had alleged commission of offences under Section 323/325/34 IPC.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the petitioner along with two other accused was alleged to have been instrumental in the beating up of one Gurdip Singh, the complainant. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner and Gurdip Singh are close relatives; the first petitioner is the nephew of Gurdip Singh and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, his sisters. Apparently, during the course of proceedings other co-accused and the complainant, namely, the mother and the driver who is alleged to have been party to the assault upon the complainant, moved an application for compounding; that was granted. The Court on 22. 03. 00 after considering the materials on record, formed an opinion that charges could framed under Section 323/34 IPC in respect of the petitioners. The Public prosecutor appears to have subsequently moved an application on 26. 10. 02 averring that the MLC indicated grievous hurt. That application as well as another application for dropping of the charges so far as the present pe
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top