W.P.(CRL)/850/2024 of NITISH JAISWAL Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Parties
- + W.P.(CRL) 850/2024, CRL.M.A. 7946/2024, CRL.M.A. 7947/2024 & CRL.M.A. 7948/2024 NITISH JAISWAL (PETITIONER)
- STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR (RESPONDENT)
Cites (3)
- 2024 INSC 897 (2024) CONSIDERED
- MAHESH DAMU KHARE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. (2024)
- CRL.A./1207/2016 of RAJINDER KUMAR @ AMAN Vs STATE (2017)
Statutes cited (2)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 850/2024, CRL.M.A. 7946/2024, CRL.M.A. 7947/2024 & CRL.M.A. 7948/2024 NITISH JAISWAL ..... Petitioner
Through:
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with
With Insp. Sandeep Kr. Ahlawat, P.S.- Burari. P.S.- Burari.
Mr. Alok Sharma and Mr. Vasu Agarwal, Advocates. Agarwal, Advocates.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
O R R% 13.03.2024
1.The present petition seeking following relief:
“i. Issue writ in the nature Of Mandamus Or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s , direction/s, for setting aside notice dated 05.03.2024 , U/S 91/ 160 CR P C, PS:BURARI, served upon the petitioner, in contravention to the mandate of Code Of Criminal Procedure to produce documents which is subject matter of Civil Suit Bearing No 361/2024, pending before the court OF LD. CIVIL JUDGE , TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI, already between the Petitioner And Respondent No 2/ Brijesh Kumar.”
2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he has filed suit for permanent injunction against the respondent no.2 on 19.02.2024 and same is pending. He submits that during the pendency of the said suit notice was served upon him under Sections 91/160 Cr.P.C.
calling upon the petitioner to furnish certain documents relating to the subject matter of the suit.
3.He submits that such notice is not tenable in law inasmuch as such notice cannot be used mode to collect the evidence at the instance of the defendant in the suit.
4.He further submits that there is no inquiry, trial or proceedings pending. In this view of the matter also the notice could not have been issued.
5.On the other hand, the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on instruction from the Investigating Officer who is present in Court, submits that though the notice was sent but no response of the same was given by the present petitioner.
6.He further submits that the inquiry has already culminated into report which has been furnished to the DCP concerned. He submits that since the inquiry has concluded, therefore, no further notice will be sent to the petitioner under Section 91/160 Cr.P.C. prior to the registration of FIR, if at all the same is registered.
7.In view of the above, statement of the learned Additional Standing Counsel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not wish to press for the present petition.
8.The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
MARCH 13, 2024/ss
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J