statement of the accused under section 313 of cr....

Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P.C .

r/w Section 281 of Cr. P.C.

FIR No.31/2013

PS – Parliament Street

U/s – 279/337/304A IPC

State Vs. Jasdeep Singh

16.03.2016

Statement of accused Jasdeep Singh S/o Sh. J. S. Bhatia.

Without Oath

Q. It is alleged against you that on 16.02.2013 at about 07:20 am at crossing R. P.

Road, Janpath, New Delhi, you were driving Hyundai Getz car bearing registration

number HR26Y7022 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life

and personal safety of others and while so driving, you hit your car against one

TSR/auto bearing registration number DL1RL1993 and caused simple injuries on

the person of Mangal Singh and further caused death of Divya Wadhavan. What do

you have to say?

A. It is incorrect.

Q. It is in evidence against you that PW1 Ct. Ravinder has deposed against you

that on 16.02.2013, he does not remember the D.D. Number, but Duty Officer

instructed him to report before ASI Hari Singh at Janpath Crossing Red Light in

relation to call of one accident. He went at the spot where he met ASI Hari Singh

there. They found one car bearing registration number HR26Y7022 and one bearing

registration number TSR DL – 1R – 1993 in accidental condition. The driver of

abovementioned car Jasdeep was also present at the spot and he informed them that

one lady has been injured due to collusion between abovementioned car and TSR.

Accused also informed them that lady had been shifted to RML Hospital by a private

vehicle. ASI Hari Singh left him at the spot for preservation of the spot and he went

to RML Hospital. After some time, ASI Hari Singh came back at the spot and handed

over him Rukka of present case for registration of FIR. He went to PS for registration

.....................Contd/

http://Cr.P.C/

: 2 :

of FIR, got FIR registered and after registration of FIR, came back at the

spot alongwith copy of FIR and original Rukka and handed over the same to him for

further handing over to ASI Hari Singh as further investigation of case was marked to

him. IO seized offending vehicle bearing registration number HR26Y7022 vide

memo Ex.PW1/A, seized TSR vide memo Ex.PW1/B, RC and insurance certificate of

offending vehicle vide memos Ex.PW1/C and DL of accused vide memo Ex.PW1/D,

arrested accused vide memo Ex.PW1/E and conducted his personal search. Vehicles

were deposited in malkhana. Accused was released on bail. IO recorded his

statement. He correctly identified you and photographs of vehicles as mark 'P1' to

mark 'P5'. What do you have to say?

A. It is incorrect.

Q. It is in evidence against you that PW2 Mangal Singh has deposed against you

that he does not remember the date of incident, but incident took place in the year

2013 and at that time, he was plying TSR on Delhi roads. On the day of incident in

morning hours, one lady passenger boarded his TSR from Inderpuri for dropping the

said passenger to Pragati Maidan. When, he reached at the crossing of Janpath Road

and Bhagawan Dass Road at about 6 – 7 am, while he was crossing the junction,

suddenly some vehicle hit his TSR and due to which, he got injured and fell

unconscious. After 24 hours, when he gained his consciousness, he was admitted in

hospital. Thereafter, police came to hospital and inquired him about the said incident

and further recorded his statement. What do you have to say?

A. It is incorrect.

Q. Why this case has been registered against you?

A. I have been falsely implicated in this case.

Q. Why witnesses have deposed against you?

A. I cannot say anything.

Q. Do you want to say anything more?

..................Contd/

: 3 :

A. I am innocent. I have not committed the crime alleged against me.

Q. Do you want to lead DE?

A. No.

RO&AC

(HARVINDER SINGH) M.M.06/PHC (NDD),

New Delhi/16.03.2016

Certificate

Certified that above statement has been recorded by me of the accused in

his/her presence and bearing and contains full and true account of the statement made

by him/her and has been read over to him/her and admitted to be correct.



FIR No.31/2013


U/s – 279/337/304A IPC

State Vs. Jasdeep Singh

16.03.2016

Present : Ld. APP for the State.

Sh. Sanjay Bhargav, Ld. Counsel alongwith accused Jasdeep Singh.

Sh. Mangal Singh in person as summoned witness.

Today, witness Mangal Singh examined as PW2, crossexamined by Ld. APP

for the State, not crossexamined by the accused person(s) despite opportunity given,

accordingly, discharged.

In matter of “Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors.” 1996, JCC 07,

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been observed that :

“in a case, where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date.”

In this matter, PW2 has not supported the case of the prosecution and nothing

supporting the case of prosecution came out in his skillful crossexamination done by Ld.

APP for the State. Perusal of the case file reveals that the present witness/PW2 is the only

eyewitness to the incident. In view of the above judgment, abovesaid facts and

circumstances and further since only eyewitness has not supported the case of the

prosecution, therefore, further prosecution evidence is hereby closed as no useful purpose

would be served by continuing with the trial of this case as remaining witnesses are either

formal witnesses or official witnesses.

Statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. r/w 281 of Cr. P.C.

recorded separately. It is submitted by the accused that he does not want to lead defence

evidence.

Final arguments from both sides heard.

Vide separate judgment pronounced today, accused namely Jasdeep Singh is

hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Section 279/337/304A IPC.

Jasdeep Singh is directed to furnish Bail Bond and Surety Bond in the sum of

Rs.10,000/ each under Section 437A of Cr. P.C.

....................Contd/

: 2 :

Jasdeep Singh furnished his Personal Bond and Surety Bond under Section

437A of Cr. P.C. in the sum of Rs.10,000/ each. Same are considered, accepted and shall

remain in force for six months. Original FDR of surety earlier submitted is retained for

purposes of present bail bond and surety bond.

Let, notice be issued to the LRs of the deceased for providing compensation

from DLSA as per victim compensation scheme on NDOH.

Put up the matter for further proceedings on 29.03.2016.



FIR No.388/2014

PS Vasant Vihar

U/s – 411 IPC

State Vs. Gurpreet Singh

16.03.2016

CHARGE

I, Harvinder Singh, M.M., Delhi, do hereby frame the following charge against you

Gurpreet Singh S/o Balwant Singh as under :

It is alleged against you that on 19.08.2014 at unknown time at Khokha Market, T

point, Saket, New Delhi, you were found in possession of one mobile phone make Samsung,

color black and metallic having IMEI number 359516043651068 which you

knowingly/dishonestly retained or received or having reason to believe that the same was

stolen property and thus thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC

within the cognizance of this Court.

I hereby direct you to be tried by this Court for the abovesaid offence.


New Delhi/02.03.2016Certified that the Charge has been read over and explained to the accused persons in

their vernacular language, who is questioned as under:

Q: Have you understood the charge framed against you?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Do you plead guilty or claim trial?

A: I do not plead guilty and claim trial.

RO&AC (HARVINDER SINGH)

M.M.06/PHC (NDD), New Delhi/02.03.2016

FIR No.388/2014

PS Vasant Vihar

U/s – 411 IPC

State Vs. Gurpreet Singh

16.03.2016


Accused Gurpreet Singh in person.

The accused person seeks an adjournment in this matter stating that his

counsel is not available for today.

Request declined in view of the fact that on LDOH, adjournment was given on

same ground and he was afforded an opportunity to engage a counsel for himself or to apply

for LAC, but, he fails to do so.

The accused person submits that he/she has received complete and legible set

of documents.

Matter qua charge considered. There is primafacie case against the accused

person(s) for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC only. Charge under Section 411 IPC

framed against the accused to which he/she pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.

Let, witnesses complainant and MHC(M) alongwith case property be

summoned for evidence on NDOH.

Put up the matter for PE on 09.08.2016.



Babli Kumari Vs. Rajan Kumar Jha

C.C.No.191/01/14

PS Vasant Vihar

16.03.2016

Present : None for the complainant.

Perusal of the case file reveals that none is appearing on behalf of the

complainant for last many dates of hearing and today also none is present on behalf of the

complainant to assist the Court.

It appears that complainant is not interested in prosecution of this matter.

In these facts and circumstances, this complaint stands dismissed for non

prosecution and for nonappearance of the complainant.

File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.



Ashim Kumar Sen Gupta Vs. Siddharta Sen Gupta etc.

C.C.No.284/01/16

PS – South Campus

16.03.2016

Present : Sh. Ravi Mehta, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.

Complainant is absent.

IO SI Pratap Singh is also absent.

Sh. Vikas Chhabra, Ld. Counsel for the accused.

Ld. Counsel for the complainant filed application on behalf of complainant for

exemption from personal appearance of the complainant. Considered and allowed for today

only.

It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the complainant is

threatening him upon him mobile phone though he is doing his duties only.

Ld. Counsel for the complainant is advised to counsel his client that such type

of conduct is not warranted on part of parties.

Ld. Counsel for the accused is free to pursue his legal remedies as he may

deem fit.

Let, status report be called from IO of NCR No.07/2016 of PS South Campus

on 16.05.2016.



Maheshwari Vs. Kuldeep

C.C.No.1030/15

16.03.2016


Summons issued against the accused Kuldeep received back with the report

“refused to receive by family members of accused”.

Issue B/W against the accused Kuldeep in sum of Rs.5,000/ through SHO

concerned, returnable to this Court on 01.07.2016.



Rakesh Aggarwal Vs. Gaurav Tandon

C.C.No.1182/01/15

PS – Great Kailash

16.03.2016

Statement of complainant Rakesh Aggarwal S/o Late Sh. Amar Singh Aggarwal.

On SA

I am complainant in this case. I have voluntarily compromised/compounded

the offence qua Section 138 N. I. Act with the accused as full and final settlement and I have

received a sum of Rs.50,000/ in cash from the accused today as compensation amount. No

more dues is pending against the accused. I may be allowed to compound the matter qua

Section 138 N. I. Act with the accused. I shall be bound by my statement.

RO&AC



Rakesh Aggarwal Vs. Gaurav Tandon

C.C.No.1182/01/15

PS – Great Kailash

16.03.2016

Present : Complainant Rakesh Aggarwal in person.

Sh. Amit Anand, Ld. Counsel alongwith accused Gaurav Tandon.

With the judicial intervention of the Court, the matter stands compromised

between the parties in the sum of Rs.50,000/ qua full and final settlement. Complainant

submits that in lieu of compromise, he has received a sum of Rs.50,000/ in cash as full and

final payment from the accused today in the Court and he does not want to proceed with this

case further. Permission is sought by complainant to compound the offence punishable under

Section 138 N. I. Act. His statement in this regard is recorded separately.

Permission qua compounding of offence punishable under Section 138 N. I.

Act is granted and in view of statement of complainant, offence punishable under Section 138

N. I. Act alleged against the accused is compounded and accused is hereby acquitted for

offence punishable under Section 138 N. I. Act.

Bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Original documents of

Gaurav Tandon and his surety, if any be released to them after cancellation of endorsement, if

any against acknowledgment as per rules.

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in the open Courton March 16, 2016.



Nilendra Pratap Singh Vs. Mani Shankar Aiyar etc.

C.C.No.1098/01/15


16.03.2016

Present : Sh. Shalender Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel alongwith complainant.

At request, put up the matter for consideration on 10.06.2016.



Rational Business Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anand Rai

C.C.No.580/01/15

16.03.2016

Present : Sh. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.


Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Proxy counsel alongwith employee of the accused Sh.

Bhagwati Prasad.

Accused is also absent.

Ld. Counsel for the accused moved an application on behalf of accused for

exemption from personal appearance of the accused. Considered and allowed for today only.

Today, employee of the accused made payment of Rs.1,00,000/ in cash to the

Ld. Counsel for the accused.

On request, put up the matter for remaining payment of settlement amount on

29.03.2016.



Savitri Devi Vs. Y. Khan etc.

C.C.No.933/01/15

16.03.2016


Sh. Sushil Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.

Accused is absent.

Ld. Counsel for the accused moved an application on behalf of accused for

exemption from personal appearance of the accused. Considered and allowed for today only.

Put up the matter for appearance of complainant/appearance of accused/further

proceedings on 20.07.2016.



FIR No.1395/2015

PS – Vasant Vihar

U/s – 354D/376/313/341/342/506/509 IPC

State Vs. Vijesh Kumar Sangwan

16.03.2016


Sh. Arun, Ld. Counsel alongwith accused Vijesh Kumar Sangwan.

The accused person submits that he has received complete and legible set of

documents alongwith echallan.

Since, offence(s) under consideration is/are triable by Ld. Sessions Court,

therefore, the present matter is committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance

with law and is sent to Ld. District and Sessions Judge, NDD District, Patiala House Courts,

New Delhi for proper orders for 19.03.2016.

The accused person is directed to remain present in person before the Court of

Ld. District and Sessions Judge, NDD District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on date

already fixed i.e. 19.03.2016.

Ahlmad is directed to send the file complete in all respects well in time.

Ld. Public Prosecutor be notified of the committal of the case.



Religare Securities Ltd. Vs. ______________

C.C.No.______________

PS – K. G. Marg

16.03.2016

Present : Sh. Abhishek Saran, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.

AR of the complainant is absent.

On oral request of Ld. Counsel for the complainant, AR of the complainant is

exempted from personal appearance for today only.

Put up the matter for appearance of AR of the complainant/PSE on 01.08.2016.



FIR No.61/2012

PS – South Campus

16.03.2016


Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel alongwith accused.

Summons issued to the witness SI Kuldeep Yadav received back served with

the request for providing some other date. Request as sought granted and he be summoned

afresh for evidence on NDOH.

Put up the matter for PE on 21.04.2016.



FIR No.162/2012

PS Vasant Vihar

16.03.2016


Accused Sanjay Puri is absent.

Death verification report of the accused has been received from where it is

clear that accused has expired on 26.11.2015 and verification officer has also verified the

death certificate of the accused from the hospital where he died ultimately.

In view of the same, this Court is satisfied that accused has already expired,

accordingly, proceedings stands abated against the accused. Documents of the surety of

accused, if any, be released after cancellation of endorsement, if any against acknowledgment

as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.



Chander Pal Gautam Vs. A. S. Bedi etc.

C.C.No.618/01/15

PS – Vasant Vihar

16.03.2016

Present : Sh. C. S. Gautam, Ld. Counsel alongwith complainant.

IO HC Sanjay Kumar.

Today, matter is fixed for consideration on application under Section 156 (3)

Cr. P.C.

This Court has considered the ATR already filed by IO and perusal of the

same reveals that the ATR is silent regarding the allegations of the paragraph no.07 of the

complaint regarding theft of golden articles, cash and documents, therefore, IO is directed to

file fresh ATR on abovesaid aspects on NDOH.

Put up the matter for consideration on 17.05.2016.



FIR No.11/2015

PS – North Avenue

U/s – 279/337 IPC & 146/196 M. V. Act

State Vs. Lalit Singh

16.03.2016

Today IO of this case filed fresh charge sheet under Section 279/337 IPC &

146/196 M. V. Act. It be checked and registered.


Complainant/injured Ashif Ali in person.

Accused Lalit Singh in person.

Challan filed by IO. Perused.

I take cognizance of the abovesaid offences.

Today, copy of challan supplied to the accused person(s). The accused person

submits that he/she/they has/have received complete and legible set of documents.

On inquiry from both sides, it appears that there are ample chances of

settlement in this matter.

Let, the file be put up the matter before Mediation Center today itself at 02:30

pm and returnable to this Court after process of mediation at 03:30 pm.

Parties are directed to appear in person before Mediation Center on time fixed.

Ahlmad is directed to send the file complete in all respects to the Mediation

Center well in time.



Ahmer Khan Vs. Smriti Z. Irani

C.C.No.343/01/15


16.03.2016

Present : Sh. K. K. Manon, Ld. Sr. Counsel alongwith Sh. Rajesh Inamdar and Ms. Anjali

Rajput, Ld. Counsels alongwith complainant.

Sh. Sudhir Sharma, SDM, Office of Election Commission and Sh. O. P. Tanwar,

Assistant Registrar, School of Open Learning, University of Delhi present as summoned witnesses.

Sh. Sudhir Sharma submits that though they received summons in this matter, but

no details have been provided in the summons, so he has not been able to bring relevant record on

behalf for their department.

At this stage, Ld. Counsels for the complainant supplied copies of relevant record

which they want to get summoned from the office of Election Commission of India to Sh. Sudhir

Sharma, SDM, Office of Election Commission.

Sh. O. P. Tanwar, Assistant Registrar submits that they have also received summons

in this matter, but, no details were provided in the summons so they have no idea what exact record

need to be produced, however, he has brought some of records available in sealed envelops.

At this stage, Ld. Counsels for the complainant supplied copies of relevant record

which they want to get summoned from University of Delhi to Sh. O. P. Tanwar, Assistant

Registrar, School of Open Learning, University of Delhi.

Sh. O. P. Tanwar has also submitted relevant certified copy of application form for

admission for B. Com (Honors) academic session 1993 – 1994, one certified copy of result of B.

Com (Honors – I) pertaining to year 1993 – 1994 and one certified copy of enrollment/admission

form for academic session 2013 – 2014 of B. A. (Political Science) on record.

Present witnesses are bound down to produce relevant records (copies of which

supplied by complainant side today) for evidence on NDOH and further Sh. O. P. Tanwar is also

directed to bring the originals of certified copies submitted today on NDOH. Witnesses are asked,

if they want diet money, however, they have politely declined for the same.

Put up the matter for PSE on 03.05.2016. Dasti copy of order be given to Sh.

Sudhir Sharma, SDM, Office of Election Commission and Sh. O. P. Tanwar, Assistant Registrar,

School of Open Learning, University of Delhi as prayed for.



FIR No.789/2015

PS – Vasant Vihar

U/s – 279 IPC & 185 M. V. Act

State Vs. Devender Rathore

16.03.2016

Today IO of this case filed fresh charge sheet under Section 279 IPC & 185 M.

V. Act. It be checked and registered.


IO ASI Dindayal Sharma in person.

IO of this case today filed fresh charge sheet under Section 279 IPC & 185 M.

V. Act. Same is perused and I take cognizance of offence(s).

Accused Devender Rathore is stated to be on police bail.

Issue summons against the accused Devender Rathore and notice to his surety

for appearance through IO of this case on NDOH.




FIR No.1306/2015

PS Vasant Vihar

U/s – 188 IPC

State Vs. Dinesh Dass

16.03.2016

Fresh challan under Section 188 IPC filed by IO. It be checked and registered.


IO HC Giriraj Prasad in person.

Accused Dinesh Dass in person.


I take cognizance of the abovesaid offence.

Today, copy of challan supplied to the accused person(s). The accused person

submits that he/she/they has/have received complete and legible set of documents.

At this stage, accused has moved an application under Section 265 (B) of Cr.

P.C. accompanied with an affidavit.

In view of the same, let, the matter be put up before Monthly National Lok

Adalat to be held on 09.04.2016.

IO is directed to remain present in person alongwith previous conviction

record of the accused in same offence, if any before the National Lok Adalat to be held on

09.04.2016.



FIR No.685/2015

PS – Vasant Vihar

U/s – 363 IPC

State Vs. Cancellation Report

16.03.2016

Today IO of this case filed fresh cancellation report under Section 363 IPC. It

be checked and registered.



IO of this case today filed fresh cancellation report under Section 363 IPC.

Same is perused.

Let, notices be issued to complainant and both victims through complainant

for consideration on 02.04.2016.



FIR No.137/2016

PS South Campus

16.03.2016

This is an application for releasing of articles as mentioned in the application

alongwith bag.


Applicant Virender Jitchhibba in person.

IO has filed his reply. Same is taken on record wherein it has been submitted

that articles have been recovered in abandoned condition on Tpoint of Ramnathbij Marg –

Vande Matram Marg.

Instead of releasing the article on superdari, this Court is of the view that the

article has to be released as per directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in matter of

“Manjit Singh Vs. State” in Crl. M.C. No. 4485/2013 dated 10.09.2014.

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in abovesaid judgment/order while relying

upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of “Sunderbhai Ambalal

Desai Vs. State of Gujarat”, AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 638, “General Insurance

Council & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.” Writ Petition (C) No.14 of 2008

decided on 19.04.2010 and “Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil Vs. State of Mysore”, (1977)

4 SCC 358 has held :

“59. The valuable articles seized by the police may be released to the person, who , in the opinion of the court, is lawfully entitled to claim such as the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, after preparing detailed panchnama of such articles, taking photographs of such articles and a security bond.

60. The photographs of such articles should be attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Whenever necessary, the court may get the jewellery articles valued from a government approved valuer.

61. The actual production of the valuable articles during the trial should not be insisted upon and the photographs along with the panchnama should suffice for the purposes of evidence.

Considering the facts and circumstances and law laid down by Hon'ble High

Court of Delhi, since accused in this matter is not known, articles i.e. Pan Card, ID Card,

PNB Bank Cheque Books, some key, license of M. Chhibba Electronic Corporation, stamps

and letter head alongwith photocopy of some papers as per seizure memo be released to the

applicant by IO on furnishing security bond as per valuation report of articles of applicant

....................Contd/

: 2 :

and after preparation of panchnama, even without signatures of any accused

and taking photographs of articles as per above directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in

above cited paragraphs. Panchnama, photographs, valuation report and security bond shall

be filed alongwith final report. Panchnama, photographs, valuation report and security bond

shall be sufficient evidence in trial against any accused, if someone is put to trial for the

commission of theft of the said articles as per judgment of “Manjit Singh Vs. State” in Crl.

M.C. No.4485/2013 dated 10.09.2014 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and “General

Insurance Council & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.” Writ Petition (C) No.14 of

2008 decided on 19.04.2010 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Dasti copy of order

be given as prayed for.



FIR No.790/2015

PS – Vasant Vihar

16.03.2016

Statement of accused Sansar S/o Sh. Ram Singh Yadav.

Without Oath

I plead guilty to the offence under Section 279 IPC. The allegations leveled

against me in the charge sheet are correct. I am making this statement voluntarily and

without any pressure or undue influence. I have understood the consequences of my

statement and the punishment prescribed for the offence.

RO&AC



FIR No.790/2015PS - Vasant Vihar

U/s - 279 IPCState Vs. Sansar

16.03.2016

Fresh challan under Section 279 IPC filed by IO. It be checked and registered.



Accused Sansar in person.


I take cognizance of the above-said offences.

Today the copy of the challan supplied to the accused person. The accused

person submits that he/she has received complete and legible set of documents.

At this stage, accused person submits that he wants to plead guilty in this

matter. I have explained consequences of plea of guilt. Yet, the accused reiterates his plea of

guilt. His statement to that effect recorded separately.

Plea of guilt qua Section 279 IPC of the accused is accepted as this Court is

satisfied that the same has been made by the accused voluntarily and after understanding the

ingredients of the offence. Accordingly, accused person stands convicted for the offence

under Section 279 IPC.

ORDER ON SENTENCE

Ld. APP for the State submits that convict be sentenced as per law.

On the other hand, convict prays for a lenient view stating that he is a poor

person and is a sole bread earner of his family.

I have heard both sides on the point of sentence.

Since, the accused has come forward to admit his guilt on the very first day

and has not taken any chance of trial and thus has saved the valuable time of this Court and

the treasury from unnecessary burden, therefore, such type of persons who genuinely admit

their mistake are entitled for lenient view as harsh punishment to such people would

discourage who genuinely want to admit their mistake and therefore, in totality of

circumstances, convict person is hereby sentenced to imprisonment till rising of this Court

and further to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC. Fine deposited.

Be awaited till 04:00 pm.


New Delhi/16.03.2016...................Contd/-

: 2 :

At 04:00 pm.

Present : Same as above.

Convict has already served the sentence.

Bail bond and surety bond, if any are cancelled and discharged.

Superdarinama, if any stands cancelled or vehicle if detained be release to rightful claimant.

Original documents of convict and his surety, if any, be returned to him after cancellation of

endorsement. A copy of the order on sentence be supplied to the convict free of costs.





M/s Ish Travel & Tours Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s My Agent Travel & Tourism

C.C.No.572/01/16

16.03.2016

Statement of Sh. Raman Jain, AR of the complainant.

On SA

I tender into evidence my affidavit Ex.CW1/A as my presummoning

evidence which bears my signatures at point 'A' and 'B'. I rely on documents Ex.CW1/1 to

Ex.CW1/8 in presummoning evidence. We do not press our complaint against accused

no.01.

I hereby close my presummoning evidence.



M/s Ish Travel & Tours Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s My Agent Travel & Tourism

C.C.No.572/01/16

16.03.2016

Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.

Present : Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Ld. Counsel alongwith AR of the complainant Sh.

Raman Jain.

This is complaint filed for offence punishable under Section 138 N. I. Act. I

take cognizance of said offence.

The AR of complainant has tendered has affidavit Ex.CW1/A in pre

summoning evidence alongwith documents and has deposed that they do not press their

complaint against accused no.01. He has closed his presummoning evidence.

Arguments on point of summoning heard and documents perused. I have also

gone through the impugned cheque, bank return memo, legal demand notice and other

documents placed on record. I have also checked the mode of the sending of demand notice.

The complaint is filed within the period of limitation.

In view of the statement of AR of complainant, name of proposed accused

no.01 stands deleted from array of accused persons.

There are sufficient grounds for proceedings against proposed accused no.02

being partner/authorized signatory for offence punishable under Section 138 N. I. Act, 1881.

Hence, issue summons against the accused no.02 on P.F./R.C. for 24.10.2016.

The complainant can provide email address of accused person(s), if any for service. The

process server is directed to serve the summons by way of affixation, if premises found

closed or same could not be served personally or on any adult male member. An

endorsement be also made that if application for compounding at first hearing is made the

court may pass appropriate orders at the earlier as per judgment of Damodar S. Prabhu cited

as (2010) 5 SCC 663. Complainant is directed to file PF and take steps within 20 days

including providing copy(ies) of complaint otherwise the complaint may be dismissed U/s

204(4) Cr. P.C.



M/s Akzo Nobel India Limited Vs. M/s Alam Trading Company etc.

C.C.No.571/01/16

16.03.2016

Statement of Sh. Bharat Lal Juyal, AR of the complainant.

On SA

I tender into evidence my affidavit Ex.CW1/A as my presummoning

evidence which bears my signatures at point 'A' and 'B'. I rely on documents Ex.CW1/1 to

Ex.CW1/9 in presummoning evidence. We do not press our complaint against accused

no.01.




M/s Akzo Nobel India Limited Vs. M/s Alam Trading Company etc.

C.C.No.571/01/16

16.03.2016


Present : Sh. Nitesh, Ld. Counsel alongwith AR of complainant Sh. Bharat Lal Juyal.



The AR of complainant has tendered has affidavit Ex.CW1/A in pre

summoning evidence alongwith documents and has deposed that they do not press their

complaint against accused no.01. He has closed his presummoning evidence.


gone through the impugned cheque, bank return memo, legal demand notice and other



In view of the statement of AR of complainant, name of proposed accused

no.01 stands deleted from array of accused persons.

There are sufficient grounds for proceedings against proposed accused no.02

being partner/authorized signatory for offence punishable under Section 138 N. I. Act, 1881.

Hence, issue summons against the accused no.02 on P.F./R.C. for 17.10.2016.

The complainant can provide email address of accused person(s), if any for service. The

process server is directed to serve the summons by way of affixation, if premises found

closed or same could not be served personally or on any adult male member. An

endorsement be also made that if application for compounding at first hearing is made the




204(4) Cr. P.C.



M/s Akzo Nobel India Limited Vs. __________________

C.C.No.______________(02)

16.03.2016

Statement of Sh. Bharat Lal Juyal, AR of the complainant.

On SA

I tender into evidence my affidavit Ex.CW1/1 as my presummoning evidence

which bears my signatures at point 'A' and 'B'. I rely on documents Ex.CW1/A to

Ex.CW1/G in presummoning evidence.




M/s Akzo Nobel India Limited Vs. __________________

C.C.No.______________(02)

16.03.2016


Present : Sh. Santosh Manglam, Ld. Counsel alongwith AR of the complainant.



The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/1 in presummoning

evidence alongwith documents. He has closed his presummoning evidence.


gone through the impugned cheuqe, bank return memo, legal demand notice and other



There are sufficient grounds for proceeding further against accused person(s)

for offence punishable under Section 138 N. I. Act.

Hence, issue summons against the accused person(s) on P.F./R.C. for

17.10.2016. The complainant can provide email address of accused person(s), if any for

service. The process server is directed to serve the summons by way of affixation, if

premises found closed or same could not be served personally or on any adult male member.

An endorsement be also made that if application for compounding at first hearing is made the




204(4) Cr. P.C.



FIR No.307/2016

PS – Vasant Vihar

16.03.2016

Statement of Sh. Vishal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant.

At Bar

I hereby voluntarily withdraw the present application. I may be allowed for

the same. I shall be bound by my statement.

RO&AC



M/s Salora International Ltd. Vs. ______________

C.C.No.______________

16.03.2016

Fresh case received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.

Present : Sh. Ajay Malviya, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.




Put up the matter for appearance of AR of the complainant/further proceedings

on 10.08.2016.



FIR No.307/2016

PS – Vasant Vihar

16.03.2016


ASI Surender on behalf of IO SI Ranveer Singh.

Sh. Vishal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant Devender Singh.

This is an application for grant of bail of the applicant.

Reply of IO to the application of applicant received.

At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that he wants to withdraw

the present application. His statement to that effect recorded separately.

In view of the statement of Ld. Counsel for the applicant, present application

stands dismissed as withdrawn. Dasti copy of order be given as prayed for.



M/s Intec Capital Vs. ______________

C.C.No.______________

16.03.2016


Present : Sh. Avnish Mishra, Proxy counsel for the complainant.




Put up the matter for appearance of AR of the complainant/further proceedings

on 12.08.2016.



FIR No.67/2016

PS - South Campus

16.03.2016


Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused Prince Sharma.

This is an application of the applicant/accused for release of articles seized

during jamatalashi as mentioned in the application.

Reply of IO to the application of applicant received.

I have considered the submissions made in the application and reply of IO.

In view of the same, the application is accordingly, allowed. MHC(M)

concerned is directed to release the seized articles of jamatalashi as per jamatalashi memo

to the applicant/accused as per rules which are not part of case property or which are not

proceeds of crime or required for investigation after consultation with IO. Dasti copy of

order be given as prayed for.



FIR No.42/2016

PS - South Campus

16.03.2016


Sh. T. A. Siddiqui, Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant Vikas.

This is 2nd application for grant of bail filed under Section 437 of Cr. P.C.

wherein it has been submitted that this is a false case and no offence is made out against the

applicant. It is further submitted in the application that no more required for any custodial

interrogation and therefore, should be grant bail in this matter.

Submissions from both sides heard.

In view of the fact that no fresh grounds have been pleaded in the present

application, therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to grant bail to the accused

person at this stage, accordingly, bail application of the applicant/accused is hereby rejected.

Dasti copy of order be given as prayed for.



FIR No.347/2016

PS – Vasant Vihar

16.03.2016


IO SI Arvind Kumar.

Sh. Pramod Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant Arun.

This is an application for grant of bail filed under Section 437 of Cr. P.C.

wherein it has been submitted that this is a false case and no offence is made out against the

applicant. It is further submitted in the application that he is no more required for any

custodial interrogation and therefore, should be grant bail in this matter.

IO has filed his reply wherein it has been submitted that even present address

of the accused could not be verified as he has not given his present address.

At this stage, copy of present address submitted on behalf of accused.

Let, fresh report be filed by IO for consideration on 21.03.2016. Copy of fresh

address submitted today be sent to IO for verification.



FIR No.305/2006

PS – Sarita Vihar

16.03.2016


Accused Nisha Anna Chacko, Shyni Varghese and Sherin Sara Chacko are

already PO/absconders in this case.

Remaining accused persons are already on permanent exemption through their

respective Ld. Counsels.

Sh. S. K. Saxena and Ms. Manisha Sharma, Ld. Counsels for accused no.01,

02, 03, 04, 07, 08, 09, 10 and 12.

Sh. Surya Prakash Khatri, Ld. Counsel for the accused no.13.

Inspector Madanjeet Singh in person as summoned witness. No time left

today for recording evidence in this matter, therefore, witness is discharged unexamined

today.

Put up the matter for PE on date already fixed i.e. 17.03.2016.



M/s Gulati Paints and Hardware Vs. Yogesh Sharma

C.C.No.403/01/16

16.03.2016


Present : Sh. Sanjay Diwan, Ld. Counsel alongwith complainant.

Before transfer of the present matter, summoning order was already passed.

Issue summons against the accused person(s) on P.F./R.C. for 08.06.2016.

Complainant is directed to file PF and take steps within 15 days including providing copy(ies)

of complaint otherwise the complaint may be dismissed U/s 204(4) Cr. P.C.



Ashutosh Bansal Vs. All India Council of Technical Education

C.C.No.568/01/16


16.03.2016

Fresh application received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.

Present : Complainant Ashutosh Bansal in person.

At request, put up the matter for consideration on application on 14.04.2016.



FIR No.245/2015

PS – Tilak Marg

16.03.2016


IO SI Kishan Lal.

Sh. Arvind Khasna, Ld. Counsel alongwith accused.

Notice issued to the complainant received back served by way of affixation,

however, he is absent.

It appears that the complainant is not interested in compounding of matter by

way of pleabargaining.

In view of the same, present matter is sent back to the concerned Court

through the Court of Ld. CMM (NDD), PHC for 23.03.2016.

Accused person(s) is/are direct to appear before the Court of Ld. CMM

(NDD), PHC on 23.03.2016.

Ahlmad is directed to send the file complete in all respects to the Court of Ld.

ACMM (West) well in time.



FIR No.548/2015

PS – Vasant Vihar

U/s – 379/511/34 IPC

State Vs. Sushil Kumar

16.03.2016

Today IO of this case filed fresh charge sheet under Section 379/511/34 IPC. It

be checked and registered.


IO HC Sanjay Kumar in person.

IO of this case today filed fresh charge sheet under Section 379/511/34 IPC.

Same is perused and I take cognizance of offence(s).

Accused Sushil Kumar is stated to be on Court bail. Accused 'X' is stated to

be juvenile in this matter

Issue summons against the accused Sushil Kumar and notice to his surety for

appearance through IO of this case on NDOH.




Usha International Ltd. Vs. A. K. Aggarwal

C.C.No.853/01/15

16.03.2016

File taken up today on request of Ld. Counsel for the complainant.

Present : Sh. Abhay Singh, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Deepak, Ahlmad of this Court.

It is submitted by Ahlmad of this Court that file could not be taken up on

28.02.2016 being holiday for Sunday and further due to rush of files.

At this stage, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that AR of the

complainant is not available today and seeks an adjournment in this matter.



Put up the matter for appearance of AR of the complainant/consideration on

11.08.2016.



FIR No.11/2015

PS – North Avenue

U/s – 279/337 IPC & 146/196 M. V. Act


16.03.2016

Statement of injured Ashif Ali S/o Late Sh. Mohd. Budha Khan.

On SA

I am injured in this case. I have voluntarily compromised/compounded the

offence qua Section 337 IPC with the accused before Mediation Cell and I have received a

sum of Rs.25,000/ in cash from the accused today as compensation amount. I may be

allowed to compound the matter qua Section 337 IPC with the accused. I shall be bound by

my statement.

RO&AC



FIR No.11/2015

PS – North Avenue

U/s – 279/337 IPC & 146/196 M. V. Act


16.03.2016

Statement of accused Lalit Singh S/o Sh. Sunder Singh.

Without Oath

I plead guilty to the offences under Section 279 IPC & 146/196 M. V. Act.

The allegations leveled against me in the charge sheet are correct. I am making this statement

voluntarily and without any pressure or undue influence. I have understood the consequences

of my statement and the punishment prescribed for the offences.

RO&AC



FIR No.11/2015

PS – North Avenue

U/s – 279/337 IPC & 146/196 M. V. Act


16.03.2016

Matter received back from Mediation Cell with the report “Settled”.


IO SI Ved Prakash in person.

Complainant/injured Ashif Ali in person.

Accused Lalit Singh in person.

The matter has been compromised between the injured and accused before

Mediation Cell qua Section 337 IPC in the sum of Rs.25,000/. Injured submits that in lieu

of compromise, he has received a sum of Rs.25,000/ in cash as compensation from the

accused today in the Court as per settlement before Mediation Cell and he does not want to

proceed with this case further. Permission is sought by injured to compound the offence

punishable under Section 337 IPC. His statement in this regard is recorded separately.

Permission qua compounding of offence punishable under Section 337 IPC is

granted and in view of statement of injured, offence punishable under Section 337 IPC

alleged against the accused is compounded and accused stands acquitted for offence

punishable under Section 337 IPC.

Accused person also states that he wishes to plead guilty to the offences

punishable under Section 279 IPC & 146/196 M. V. Act. I have explained consequences of

plea of guilt. Yet, the accused reiterates his plea of guilt.

Plea of guilt qua Section 279 IPC & 146/196 M. V. Act of the accused is

accepted as this Court is satisfied that the same has been made by the accused voluntarily and

after understanding the ingredients of the offences. Accordingly, accused stands convicted

for offences punishable under Section 279 IPC & 146/196 M. V. Act.

ORDER ON SENTENCE

Ld. APP for the State submits that convict be sentenced as per law.

On the other hand, convict prays for a lenient view stating that he is a poor

person and is a sole bread earner of his family.

I have heard both sides on point of sentence.

..................Contd/

: 2 :

In the totality of circumstances, convict person is hereby admonished for the

offences punishable under Section 279 IPC & 146/196 M. V. Act.

Bail bonds are cancelled and surety is discharged. Superdarinama, if any also

stands cancelled. Vehicles, if any be also released to its rightful owner(s) against

acknowledgment as per rules. Original documents of complainant/injured, convict and his

surety, if any be released to them after cancellation of endorsement, if any against

acknowledgment as per rules. A copy of order on sentence be supplied to the convict and

complainant/injured free of costs.





FIR No.26/2010

PS – Vasant Vihar

16.03.2016


Sh. D. D. Tripathi, Ld. Counsel alongwith accused.

Final arguments from both sides heard.

Put up the matter for clarifications, if any/final orders on 17.03.2016 at 04:00

pm.



FIR No. 1366/2014PS Vasant Vihar.

This is an application for seeking direction be given to IO concerned to file status report on behalf of applicant Vijay Kumar Shukla who is brother of deceased Ajay Shukla.

Present: Ld. APP for the State.

Counsel for applicant.

Status report not filed.

Let fresh notice to IO to remained present with case diary, for

consideration on 29.03.2016.

(Harvinder Singh) MM06/PHC/ND/16.03.2016

CC No. 515/1/14

File taken up today on an application for recalling proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C issued against applicant/accused namely Vineet Kumar.

Present: None for complainant.

Applicant/accused with counsel.

Sh. Deepak, Ahlmad of this court, submits that notice called be

not issued to the complainant due to shortage of time.

In view of the same, let Notice be issued to the complainant of

application of accused for date fixed.

In the meantime orders qua arrest of accused Vineet Kumar are

hereby stayed.

Put up on date already fixed .i.e 22.03.2016.

Copy of order be given dasti.


CC No. 257/1/13

Present: Complainant with counsel Sh. Anwar Ali Khan.

Accused no. 1 & 2 are already discharged.

Accused no. 3 and 4 are present with counsel Sh. S.P Singh.

Today matter is fixed for Pre Charge Evidence. However, no time

left as it is already 01.25 pm. Therefore matter in adjourned.

Put up for PreCharge Evidence for 01.07.2016.


FIR No. 203/10PS Parliament Street


Complainant Naveen Mishra present as summoned witness.

Accused in person.

Both the sides submits that they compromised the matter

between themselves.

A copy of Mutual Settlement Deed filed on record.

Both the sides seeks time to file the quashing petition before the

Hon'ble High Court and seek an adjournment. Allowed.

Put up for further proceedings on 05.09.2016.


FIR No. 110/12PS South Campus


Accused Vijay Dixit produced from JC.

Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused is present.

Accused Kalpana Dixit is absent.

Ld. Counsel for accused moved an application for grant of bail of

the present accused in this matter.

It is also submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused that they have

made major part of the payment of the settled amount to the complainant.

Let notice be issued to complainant for NDOH.

Put up for consideration on the said application/further

proceedings on 11.04.2016. Rehnumai on 30.03.2016.


FIR No. 103/10PS South Campus


Accused Vijay Dixit produced from JC(on bail) with counsel.

Accused Suman Malhotra is already declared PO.

Put up with connected matter on 11.04.2016.


FIR No. 291/15PS Vasant Vihar


Accused Lokesh Kumar produced from JC.

Sh. Banarsi Lal, Ld. Counsel for accused.

PW2 ASI Dindayal is present. He is examined, crossexamined

and discharged.

PE stands closed.

Put up for recording statement of accused on 30.03.2016.


CC No. 971/01/15

Present: Sh. Pradeep Singh, Ld. Consel for complainant.

AR of complainant is absent.

Accused produced from JC.

Sh. Anindiya Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for accused is present.

On oral prayer, AR of complainant is exempted from personal

appearance from today only.

Today matter is fixed for consideration on notice.

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused that though the

accused was supplied copies of complaint , but since accused was in JC,

therefore, he was not able to discuss the matter with accused and the defence

which they would like to submit in the notice. He further request for short

adjournment in the matter.

On the other hand, request is strongly opposed by the Ld.

Counsel for complainant, submitting that Ld. Counsel had ample opportunity

to visit the jail and to make preparation for defence to be submitted. Therefore,

request be disallowed.

Submission of both sides considered.

In the interest of justice one short adjournment is granted.

Put up for consideration on notice on 30.03.2016.


FIR No.694/15PS South Campus


Accused Amit produced from JC.

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Ld. LAC for accusaed.

Sh. Rohit Aggarwal is present on behalf of complainant Sanjay

Mehra.

It is submitted by Sh. Rohit Aggarwal, that Sanjay Mehra is ill

today and he could not appear in this matter today. An application for the

same is filed by him.

In view of the same, Sh. Sanjay Mehra is exempted from

personal appearance for today only. He is directed through Rohit Aggarwal to

appear on NDOH for evidence.

At this stage an application U/s. 437 Cr.P.C has been moved on

behalf of accused Amit filed by LAC.

In view of the fact that accused is in JC since long. He is

admitted to bail subject on furnishing PB/SB for sum of Rs. 20,000/. PB/SB

shall be accepted after verification.

PB/SB not furnished. Accused is send to JC till NDOH.

Put up for 12.04.2016. Rehnumai on 30.03.2016.


FIR No. 1578/15PS Vasnat Vihar


Accused Chandan Kumar Singh produced from JC.

LAC for accused.

Copies of challan/echallan be supplied to accused.

Put up for supplying of deficient copies/committal, if any, for

22.03.2016.


CC No. 619/01/15

Present: Sh. Rajesh Saxena, Ld. Counsel for complainant.


An application for exemption from personal appearance on behalf

complainant filed by his counsel. Heard. Allowed for today only.

Put up for appearance of complainant/PSE on 03.08.2016.


FIR No. 81/11PS Vasant Vihar


Complainant in person with counsel.

Accused Pradeep Kumar Prasar is absent.

NBW issued against accused Pradeep Kumar Prasar received

back unexecuted.

A report of the IO/Inspector Ram Sahay received, wherein, it has

been submitted that FSL report is still not ready in this matter.

It appears that accused is deliberately avoiding execution of

warrants.

In these circumstances, issue process U/s. 82 Cr.P.C against

accused Pradeep Kumar Prasar returnable on NDOH.

Notice to surety be also issued for 24.06.2016.


CC No. 154/1/16

Present: Complainant with counsel Sh. Avinash Sharma.

ATR on behalf of IO/SI Sachin Kumar received, wherein he

sought some more time to file the inquiry report in this matter.

Let fresh notice to IO/SI Sachin Kumar to file the ATR for NDOH.

At request of Ld. Counsel for complainant, put up on 04.07.2016.


FIR No. 60/14PS Parliament Street


Accused Kamal Kumar is absent.

Summons send to accused received back with the report that his

house was found locked.

Issue BW for sum of Rs. 5000/ against accused with one surety

of like amount for 14.07.2016.


FIR No.109/14PS South Campus


Accused Pradeep Kumar in person(on police bail).

Counsel for accused.

Fresh Vakaltnama on behalf of accused filed. Be taken on record.

Since offence is bailable in nature, therefore, accused Pradeep

Kumar is admitted to bail subject on furnishing PB/SB for sum of Rs. 10,000/

each.

At request, police bail is extended till NDOH.

Copy of challan supplied to the accused.

Put up for furnishing PB/SB/supplying of deficient copies of

challan, if any, /consideration on notice/charge on 20.05.2016.
