CLICK HERE TO SEE THE NOTIFICATION OF DELHI HIGH COURT

ARRANGEMENT OF MENTIONING AND HEARING OF URGENT MATTERS DURING WINTER VACATION

1. It is hereby notified that Hon’ble the Chief Justice is pleased to nominate the following Hon’ble
Judges for hearing urgent matters, if any, during ensuing Winter Vacation 2022:­

2. Hon’ble the· Chief Justice is further pleased to pass the following orders. for being followed during
the course of winter vacation:­
I. The Hon’ble Judges will sit in Division Benches and also sIngly to- hear urgent Civil and
Criminal matters and such other matters as may be placed before them as per the schedule of
dates given above.
ii. Ordinarily the Hon’ble Judges will sit in Court on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and such
other days as they may think fit at 10.30 A.M. The sitting may continue for the next
succeeding day if matters fixed for any day are not finished on that day.
iii. If one of the Hon’ble Judges is not available on any day for any unforeseen reason, the other
Hon’ble Judge may sit alone subject to the condition that the Hon’ble Judge shall not dismiss
the Division Bench matters.

W.P.(CRL) 137/2021
JOLLY SINGH ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Mr. Kishan
Kumar, Mr. HR Dhamija, Advs.
versus
THE STATE ….. Respondent
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

Delhi high court Quashing an order passed by an Additional Commissioner of Police whereby the investigation in an FIR alleging abduction was transferred to from Delhi’ Model Town police station to Uttar Pradesh’s Greater Noida,
1. This is a petition filed seeking cancellation of the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Police (Crime) dated 11.11.2020, whereby the investigation in the FIR No. 105/2019 was transferred to PS Surajpur, Greater Noida, U.P.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner made a complaint to PS Model Town against the accused persons vide Complaint No. LC-1844 dated 05.12.2018. As per the complaint, it is stated that the accused persons abducted the petitioner and took him to Noida for finalizing an import deal where there was extortion and he was also robbed of Rs. 50,00,000. It is further stated that he was illegally detained at Surajpur and was also coerced to issue cheques worth Rs. 5.75 crores. When no action was taken on his complaint, the petitioner
moved an application under section 153 Cr.PC before the concerned
court at Rohini.
3. The Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Delhi on 11.03.2019 passed an order stating “5. From the allegations and material available on record, clearly cognizable offence is made out and matter requires investigation. Accordingly, SHO concerned is directed to register an FIR in the present matter against the wrong doers in appropriate sections of law, without being influenced by the section mentioned in the complaint.” Pursuant to the said order, the FIR was registered at PS Model Town, Delhi.
4. The learned MM further directed the Addl. Commissioner of Police to ensure fair, proper and expeditious investigation. During the investigation, the Addl. Commissioner of Police had transferred the investigation to Police Station Surajpur, Noida, U.P. This transfer of
investigation from Delhi to Noida, U.P, has resulted into filing of the present petition.
5. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Add. Commissioner of Police (Crime) in transferring the investigation to Noida (UP) is contrary to law. Additionally, it is stated that the Addl. Commissioner of Police (Crime) had no authority to transfer the
investigation out of its jurisdiction, i.e, Delhi, especially when the directions for registration of the FIR was issued by the learned MM, Delhi and more so when the Ld. MM is monitoring the investigation.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the investigation of the present case was transferred from P.S. Model Town to Crime W.P.(CRL) 137/2021 Page 3 of 9 Branch, Prashant Vihar without any intimation to the Ld. MM as well as the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of being heard.
7. My attention has been drawn to the Status Report filed by the respondent which indicates that there were already two criminal cases and seven cases under Negotiable Instruments Act pending between the parties. The seven cases under NI Act are pending in Gautam Budh
Nagar, Noida and the other two FIRs which were also pending in Noida have already been cancelled. It further states that the alleged incident had taken place in PS Surajpur, Noida and that the investigation which was carried out did not establish any abduction of the petitioner from Delhi to Noida because the petitioner himself drove down to Noida. As a result, the case file was transferred vide order No. 517/ So/ Addl. CP/ Crime(HQ) dated 02.12.2020 of Addl. Commissioner of Police, Crime to the DGP, UP Police, Lucknow.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that because no cause of action or incident was related to any place in Delhi, therefore, the case was transferred to UP Police for further investigation where the jurisdiction lies.

the order of Addl. Commissioner of Police (Crime) dated 11.11.2020 is hereby quashed.

Jolly singh vs state

Case: Dhariwal Industries Ltd Vs. Kishore Wadhwani.

Citation:
(2016) 10 SCC 378.

Ss. 301 and 302 CrPC – Distinction between explained, S. 301 CrPC applying to Sessions trials and S. 302 CrPC to Magisterial trials – Role of informant or private party is limited during prosecution of a case in Sessions Court – Under S. 301 CrPC, counsel engaged by informant or private party is required to act under the directions of Public Prosecutor – Regarding S. 302 CrPC, power is conferred on Magistrate to grant permission to complainant to conduct the prosecution independently – Proper mode of seeking permission under Section 302 CrPC, held, is only by written application. (Paras 7 to 20).

 (1)Dhariwal_Industries_Ltd_vs_Kishore_Wadhwani_on_6_September_2016 (1)

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Abbas_Hatimbhai_Kagalwala_vs_The_State_Of_Maharashtra_And_Anr_on_23_August_2022

Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala … Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents
——————-
Mr. Vivek Kantawala a/w Amey Patil i/b M/s Vivek Kantawala & Co., for
the Petitioner.
Mr. D.P. Singh, for Respondent No.2.
Smt.Uma Palsuledesai, AGP for State.
———————
CORAM :S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.
DATED :23rd AUGUST 2022

MUMBAI: Observing that the permission of a court where a criminal case is pending is not required for renewal of a passport, the Bombay high court directed the regional passport office to process a man’s application without insisting on it.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that for renewal of the Passport, permission from the Court where a criminal case is pending against the Petitioner, is not necessary. If a criminal case is pending, then the only limitation would be, the Petitioner can not travel abroad without the permission from the Court where a criminal case.

It is the case of the Petitioner that validity of the Passport came to an end in the year 2017. The Petitioner applied for renewal and said application is pending for more than 4 years. It is also a fact that a criminal case is pending against the Petitioner u/s 420, 465, 467 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

. Court observes that the fact that petitioner is already issued a Passport earlier and the Petitioner would be seeking renewal of the Passport and the said application is pending with the Respondent, so also, considering the Order passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1342/2017 (supra) court pass the following order.

i) The Respondent shall process the application of the petitioner for renewal of Passport without insisting for permission of the Court, where a criminal case is pending against the Petitioner. If the Petitioner is travelling abroad, then the Petitioner would be required to seek permission from the Court where criminal case is pending.
ii) Decision shall be taken as observed above, within 2 months.
iii) The impugned communication is quashed and set aside.
iv) If as per procedure on-line application is required to be made, the same shall be made by the
Petitioner

[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]Lekh_Raj_Sharma_vs_Yash_Pal_Gupta_on_30_June_2015

Lekh Raj Sharma vs Yash Pal Gupta CRL-LP 567/14 [ Vipin Sanghi JJ ]

NI ACT Section 138 r/w Section 139 Criminal Trial Dishonour of Cheque Presumption Presumption qua issuance of chque for consideration, based upon Pronote Failure of accused respondent to rebut the presumption Not only, there appeared contradiction in statements of respondent accused and DW-1 qua amount returned to complainant, but also testimony of DW-1 found to be unbelievable Accused respondent shield away from facing cross examination This factor discredits the defence If cheque purportedly handed over to complainant-appellant in blank, purpose was to enable appellant to encash it, in the event loan was not repaid Thus, there was an implied authority to complainant appellant to fill up cheque and encash it Once pronote has been signed and executed by respondent admittedly, it acts as an acknowledgement of transaction It is in dark as to why two pronotes had been executed in blank Rejecting all pleas, impugned order set-aside Ordered accordingly. [Paras 2 to 5, 15, 19 to 22, 26 & 27]

file:///C:/Users/admin/Documents/Downloads/Lekh_Raj_Sharma_vs_Yash_Pal_Gupta_on_30_June_2015.PDF

        [ MADRAS HIGH COURT ]

Mr.S.Karunakaran vs Ms.Srileka AS 292/19 [ SATHISH KUMAR JJ ]

Hindu Marriage Act, Section 8 Information Technology Act Section 2 Marriage Validity Mere registration under section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act will not give any sanctity in the eye of law Relationship of the plaintiff and the defendant during the college days and the fact that the plaintiff is in adolescent age who hass just attained majority and the defendant is in a dominant position to dominate her will and the solemnization of marriage not being proved Email correspondences between the plaintiff and the defendant By mere filing of email, it cannot be said that those emails have been proved as per law.

adv Vaibhav Tomar

file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/Mr_S_Karunakaran_vs_Ms_Srileka_on_21_March_2019%20(1).PDF

Premature redemption under Sovereign Gold Bond (SGB) Scheme – Redemption Price for premature redemption due on November 25, 2022 (November 26 and November 27, 2022 being Saturday and Sunday respectively) (SGB 2017-18 Series IX) In terms of GOI Notification F.No.4(25) – W&M/2017 dated October 06, 2017 (SGB 2017-18 Series IX – Issue date November 27, 2017) on Sovereign Gold Bond Scheme, premature redemption of Gold Bond may be permitted after fifth year from the date of issue of such Gold Bond on the date on which interest is payable. Accordingly, the first due date of premature redemption of the above tranche shall be November 25, 2022 (November 26 and November 27, 2022 being Saturday and Sunday respectively).

2. Further, the redemption price of SGB shall be based on the simple average of closing gold price of 999 purity of previous three business days from the date of redemption as published by the India Bullion and Jewellers Association Ltd (IBJA). Accordingly, the redemption price for premature redemption due on November 25, 2022 (November 26 and November 27, 2022 being Saturday and Sunday respectively) shall be `5255/- (Rupees Five thousand two hundred fifty-five only) per unit of SGB based on the simple average of closing gold price for three business days i.e.,November 22, 23 and 24, 2022.

Press Release: 2022-2023/1251 Director (Communications): Rupambara