Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
In the matter of
VERSUS
INDEX
6. Annexure- 1
True typed copy of order dated 18-03-2019
7. Annexure- 2
Licence in the name of petitioner no. 3
Shamer Chand
8. Annexure- 3
Copy of FIR No. 75/2018, registered at Police
Station Baba Haridas Nagar
8. Annexure- 4
Compromise dated 28-07-2018 between the
parties
9. Annexure- 5
Letter dated 09-01-2019, written to
complainant/respondent no. 2
10. Application for exemption from filing certified
copies of the Annexures
11. Application for staying operation of order date
18-03-2019
Filed by
___________
ADVOCATE
NEW DELHI
DATED:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
In the matter of
VERSUS
NOTICE OF MOTION
To,
(C) being filed on behalf of the petitioners in the above stated matter,
Filed by
_________________
ADVOCATE
NEW DELHI
DATED:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
In the matter of
VERSUS
URGENT APPLICATION
To,
The Registrar,
Delhi High Court,
New Delhi-110 003.
Sir,
Filed by
_________________
ADVOCATE
NEW DELHI
DATED:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MEMO OF PARTIES
In the matter of
IN THE MATTER OF
1. Sunil Josan son of Sh. Shamer Chand Josan, resident of Village Chak
Shotriya Bandiwala & Near D.A.V. College, Professor Colony, Jalalabad,
District Fazilka.
2. Anil Kumar son of Sh. Shamer Chand Josan, resident of Village Chak
Shotriya Bandiwala & Near D.A.V. College, Professor Colony, Jalalabad,
District Fazilka.
3. Shamer Chand Josan son of Sh. Sham Lal, resident of Village Chak
Shotriya Bandiwala & Near D.A.V. College, Professor Colony, Jalalabad,
District Fazilka.
…PETITIONERS
Versus
1. State through Standing Counsel (Criminal), Delhi High Court, New Delhi.
2. Parul Goel son of Sh. Roshan Lal Goel, A-60, Anaj Mandi, Najafgarh, New
Delhi.
…RESONDENTS.
_________________
ADVOCATE
NEW DELHI
DATED: _________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
In the matter of
SYNOPSIS
The petitioners have filed the instant petition for quashing/setting aside
Josan, vide order dated 28-07-2018, in FIR No. 75/2018, under Sections
420, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Baba Hari Dass Nagar, on the
In the first place, the dispute between the parties was, predominantly, civil
Moreover, petitioners no. 1 and 2 are not even associated with the firm
M/s S.S. Exports and its business dealings in any manner whatsoever,
which is, infact, the proprietorship of petitioner no. 3 only. A false and
Police Station Baba Hari Dass Nagar, was registered against the
2018, and petitioner no. 1 Sunil Josan was granted regular bail, whereas,
the total sum of Rs. 1,55,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 97,00,000/- has already
selling their agricultural land, but, due to the slump in the property market,
the petitioners were unable to sell more land and generate money to make
petitioners requested the complainant to get sale deed of their land having
agreement to sell of the land in their favour, till, the petitioners are able to
Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bails
of the petitioners, which have been cancelled vide order under challenge
dated 18-03-2019.
LIST OF DATES
In the matter of
Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka, New Delhi, which has been passed in
1.
no. 1 and 2 are the sons of petitioner no. 3 and had their separate
business and have no link with the firm M/s S.S. Exports and its affairs
engaged in the business of Rice and Paddy and was having business
the rice business in Punjab, the firm of petitioner no. 3 suffered heavy
to take cash payment only. Since, petitioner no. 3 was not in a position to
Annexure P-3 against all the petitioners, whereas, petitioner no. 1 and 2
till 21-06-2018.
between the parties and petitioner no. 1 was released on interim regular
bail, on part payment of Rs. 15 lac. An amount of Rs. 20 lac was paid on
and it was settled that the remaining amount of Rs. 1.20 crores will be
paid by way of four cheques of Rs. 30 lac each. Two cheques totaling Rs.
60 lac were honoured and Rs. 2 lac were deposited in the bank account of
the complainant on 11-02-2019. Thus, out of the total amount of Rs. 1.55
Annexure P-4.
unable to sell their lands and arrange remaining payment. Petitioner no. 1
requested the complainant to cooperate with them and not to present the
remaining two cheques of Rs. 30 lac each and further requested to grant
3/4 months time to arrange for the remaining payment in cash. He also
requested that in the meantime, the complainant may get any agreement
to sell regarding their land in his favour in order to secure his payment. A
request letter dated 09-01-2019, Annexure -5, in this regard, was written
are challenging the same by way of this petition, on the following grounds
amongst others: -
GROUNDS
Dwarka has not appreciated the law applicable to the facts of the present
were made out to cancel the bails of the petitioners. The bails of the
and undue influence. It is pertinent to mention over here that at the time
judicial custody and the compromise was entered into on his behalf by
petitioner nos. 2 and 3. Even otherwise, petitioner no. 1 Sunil Josan was
not connected with the affairs of M/s S.S. Exports, which is the sole
influence.
honour the compromise can well be gauged out from the fact that out of
the total amount of Rs. 1.55 crores, they have made payment of Rs. 97
the time, the petitioners are able to generate cash payment, but, the
complainant didn’t pay any heed to the genuine requests of the petitioners
liability and are still ready to honour the remaining part of the compromise,
but, due to the adverse circumstances, they are not able to make cash
payment as of now and are ready to execute sale deed of their agricultural
land in favour of the complainant till the time they are able to generate
cash payment.
petitioners are arrested and sent to custody, they will not be able to do
the bail under the said provision of law, it is not open to the
9. That the petitioner has not filed any other similar petition
earlier, on the same subject matter either in this Hon'ble Court or the
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to : -
IPC registered at Baba Hari Dass Nagar, titled as State versus Sunil
petitioners;
c) Pass any other further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem
_________________
ADVOCATE
NEW DELHI
DATED: _________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN
In the matter of
DOCUMENT/ANNEXURES/MARGIN/CERTIFIED COPIES.
been filed by the petitioner and the contents of the same are not being
repeated herein for the sake of brevity and maybe read as part of this
application.
are either dim or illegible or uncertified, but, are true copies of their
original.
Annexures and pray that the aforesaid petition may be heard and decided
on the basis of the true copies of the documents filed by the petitioner.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to : -
and
b) Pass any other further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem
_________________
ADVOCATE
NEW DELHI
DATED: _________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
In the matter of
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sunil Josan son of Sh. Shamer Chand Josan, aged about 34 years,
Occupation Agriculturist, resident of Village Chak Shotrian Bandi
Wala Tehsil Jalalabad District Fazilka, at present Amritsar, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under: -
1. That the deponent is the petitioner and is filing the
accompanying petition for quashing of order dated 18-03-2019, in this
Hon’ble Court. The deponent is well conversant with the facts of the
present case. The accompanying petition has been drafted on my
instructions and the contents of the petition have been read to me.
2. That the contents of the petition are true and correct to
my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been
kept concealed therein.
3. That the petitioner has not filed any such or similar
petition either in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India.
4. That the annexure filed with the petition are true copies
of their respective originals.
VERIFICATION:
In the matter of
VERSUS
LIST OF JUDGMENTS
INDEX
5.
Filed by
___________
ADVOCATE
NEW DELHI
DATED:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. M.A. of 2019
IN
CRL. MISC. –(MAIN) No. ________ OF 2019
In the matter of
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to : -
a) Stay the operation of impugned order date 18-03-2019
b) Pass any other further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the interest of justice.
_________________
ADVOCATE
NEW DELHI
DATED: _________
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3994
Versus
ORDER
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the
respondents despite service of notice.
2. Leave granted.
Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Versus
For the Respondents :- S.B. Upadhayay, Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Anil
Kumar Jha, Advocates.
[Para 7]
JUDGMENT
2. Leave granted.
No. 78 of 1999 and sought for grant of bail. On hearing both the sides
between the parties, the appellant herein was released on bail by the
said Magistrate on his furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-
held that the court below was not justified in rejecting in cancelling the
indifferent attitude and was not taking any steps for normalising the
process, the High Court remanded the matter of the trial court to re-
bail holding that "therefore, it does not appear legally just to cancel
the bail of the accused on the ground that the accused is not
home and since the appellant has failed to adhere to this term of the
compromise, the appellant has lost his right to continue on bail. Thus,
the High Court by the impugned order has allowed the said petition of
the respondent-wife holding, inter alia, that the appellant herein had
also not appeared before the High Court inspite of the service of
notice which showed that he is not willing to keep his wife in violation
according to the High Court, was the basis for the grant of bail by the
trial Court. In the said process, it set aside the order of the Judicial
Magistrate, Ranchi made on 30th of July, 2001 rejecting the prayer of
to law. He submitted that the observation of the High Court that there
and under the terms and conditions of the said compromise the
out from the records to the contrary and that there was no such
was submitted to the court was only that there were negotiations
the appellant contravening the terms of the compromise did not arise
at all. He also contended that assuming that there was any such
cancelling the bail. He also submitted that the appellant was never
served any court notice of the petition filed by the respondent in the
High Court and the impugned order has wrongly noted that the
contended that the very basis of the grant of bail originally was on an
would keep his wife him and he having failed to fulfil the said promise
made to the court, the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail
because the foundation for the grant of bail was the promise made by
the appellant.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
opinion that the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail on
the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the
court the there will be a compromise or that the appellant would take
back his wife. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the courts below could
not have cancelled the bail solely on the ground that the appellant
had failed to keep up his promise made to the court. Here we hasten
to observe first of all from the material on record, we do not find that
Chapter XXXIII of the Code and the provision therein does not
compromise. What the court has to bear in mind while granting bail is
what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code. In our opinion,
having granted the bail under the said provision of law, it is not open
to the trial court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground
provision of law.
8. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court has erred in passing the
impugned order.
9. For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds. The
Appeal allowed.