W.P.(CRL)/1876/2023 of SANDEEP KUMAR Vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS
Parties
- SANDEEP KUMAR (PETITIONER)
- COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS (RESPONDENT)
Cited by (11)
Counts citations resolved within this build's own ingested judgment corpus. The true corpus-wide count will be higher until more of the corpus is ingested.
- W.P.(C)/16468/2024 of VIKRAM Vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE & ANR. (2024)
- W.P.(C)/860/2017 of SHAITAN SINGH MEENA Vs UOI AND ANR (2019)
- W.P.(C)/5056/2015 of PRASHANT KUMAR Vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. (2016)
- W.P.(C)/9675/2015 of RAJ PAL Vs DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR (2015)
- W.P.(C)/5534/2013 of GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR Vs JITENDER KUMAR (2013)
Cites (0 resolved of 1 detected)
1 case citation detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Statutes cited (1)
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) 1876/2023 and CRL.M.A. 17334/2023
SANDEEP KUMAR
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kamlesh Kr.Mishra, Ms.Renu Prajapati, Ms.Shivani and Ms.Snigdha, Advocates
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel with Mr.Abhinav Kumar and Mr.Priyam Agrawal, Advocates with SI Dharmendra Mr.Manish Mohan, CGSC with Mr.Jatin Teotia, Advocates
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
O R R% 27.09.2024
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the retention of the petitioner’s name in the Surveillance Register maintained at P.S. Kishangarh, New Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that although the State alleges the petitioner’s involvement in 11 cases, he has been acquitted/discharged in almost all of them. He further submits that the last involvement is shown to be of the year 2021 and the other previous involvements were of the year 1995 or earlier. It is also stated that the continuation of the petitioner’s name in the Surveillance Register is coming in his way of being employed.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was convicted in FIR No.392/1995 registered under Sections 392/34 IPC at P.S. Sarojini Nagar, Delhi and that the trial in relation to FIR No.323/2021 at P.S. Kishangarh, Delhi, is pending. He further submits that the petitioner’s acquittal/discharge would be considered by the concerned DCP in light of the grounds urged in the present petition, which itself would be treated as representation and an appropriate decision would be taken in accordance with law. Let the needful be done within one month from today.
4. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to approach the Court again.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2024 na
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J