W.P.(CRL)/2924/2023 of VIJAY Vs STATE OF NCT
Parties
- None (PETITIONER)
- STATE OF NCT (RESPONDENT)
Cited by (2)
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.
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) 2924/2023 VIJAY .....Petitioner VIJAY .....Petitioner
Through:
None.
versus
STATE OF NCT
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC with Mr. Abhinav Kr. Arya and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates. SI Parag Rohilla and ASI Devender Kumar, P.S. Sunlight Colony. Abhinav Kr. Arya and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates. SI Parag Rohilla and ASI Devender Kumar, P.S. Sunlight Colony.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
14.08.2025
1. There has been no appearance on behalf of the Petitioner on the last two occasions. The same position continues today. Nonetheless, the Court has perused the record with the assistance of counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner is the Complainant in FIR No. 226/2023, P.S. Sunlight Colony, which was registered under Sections 323/341/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.[1] On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 3[rd] May, 2024 under Sections 323/325/341/506 and 34 of IPC.
3. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the omission of Section 307 IPC in the chargesheet filed by the Prosecution, filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs:
“1. Issue in nature of writ in nature of mandamus, to direct
1 “IPC”
respondent to add particularly section 307 of IPC In the either In the FIR or in chargesheet against the accused persons
2. Direct the respondent to proceeds the Investigation of present case as per law. case as per law.
3. Pass any further order/orders or direction/directions as may deem fit and proper.” deem fit and proper.”
4. During the pendency of the present matter, the proceedings before the
Trial Court continued, and by order dated 25[th] March, 2025, charges were also framed under Sections 323, 325, 341, 506, and 34 of the IPC.
5. In light of the above, in the opinion of the Court, the reliefs sought in
the present petition are now rendered infructuous.
6. In case the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order framing charges, he shall be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedies, in accordance with law.
7. The Court has not commented on the merits of the case.
8. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
AUGUST 14, 2025
SANJEEV NARULA, J