Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ish Bhatnagar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 10 February, 2025
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
SLP (CRL.) NO. 3523/2024
ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 3523/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-07-2023
in CRLMC No. 3427/2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi]
ISH BHATNAGAR PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
Date : 10-02-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Adish Aggarwala, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amish Aggarwala, AOR
Ms. Alka Nupur Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kuldeep Jauhari, Adv.
Mr. Karan Ahuja, Adv.
Mr. Anubhav Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Vedansh Lohani, Adv.
Ms. Ekta Mudgil, Adv.
Ms. Manisha Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Sahil Ahuja, Adv.
Ms. Samta Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Joshi, Adv.
Ms. Manju Aggarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Kartikeya Asthana, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Awana, Adv.
Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Awana, Adv.
Signature Not Verified Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv.
Digitally signed by
geeta ahuja
Mr. Zafar Khurshid, Adv.
Date: 2025.02.11
16:51:52 IST
Reason:
Mr. Shahzeb Ahmed, Adv.
Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Kochhar, Adv.
1
SLP (CRL.) NO. 3523/2024
Ms. Riddhi Goyal, Adv.
Mr. Srinivasan Ramaswamy, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the court made the following
O R D E R
1. Heard Mr. Adish Aggarwala, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, we are satisfied that the High Court has not committed any mistake in refusing to quash the FIR under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the consequential proceedings thereof.
3. In view of the above, we do not deem it necessary to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
4. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
5. However, any observations made in the order impugned would not affect the trial. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial in accordance with law most expeditiously.
(Ram Subhag Singh) (Geeta Ahuja)
Assistant Registrar Assistant Registrar-cum-PS
2