Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Imran Ahmad (Since Deceased) Thr. His ... vs State & Anr on 20 October, 2022

                          $~28
                          *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +       CRL.M.C. 5461/2022 & CRL. M.A. 21663/2022
                                  IMRAN AHMAD (SINCE DECEASED) THR. HIS LEGAL HEIRS
                                                                                ..... Petitioner
                                              Through: Mr. Tarique Siddiqui, Mr. Tanuj
                                                        Gulati and Mr. Jyotsna Bhardwaj,
                                                        Advs.

                                                      versus

                                  STATE & ANR.                                       ..... Respondent
                                                      Through:     Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State
                                                                   with IO SI Jitendra, PS Jamia Nagar.

                                  CORAM:
                                  HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA
                                                      ORDER

% 20.10.2022 CRL.M.A. 21664/2022 (Application for exemption from filing certified and typed copies of the Annexures) 1.0. Allowed subject to just exceptions. Application is disposed of accordingly.

2.0 This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Article 227 of Constitution of India praying as under :-

(a) "Allow the present petition and set aside the impugned order dated 05.09.2022 passed by Shri Sanjay Garg-1, Ld. Principal District & Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:05.11.2022 19:11:24 Session Judge, South East District, Saket Courts in Cr. Revision No. 20416412016 titled as "Imran Ahmad (Since Deceased) through his Legal Heirs vs. State & Anr.; and also set aside the impugned orders dated 08.05.2015 & 01.06.2015 passed by Ld. MM-10, (South East), Saket Courts in case FIR NO. 140/2011 PS. Jamia Nagar titled as State vs. Imran Ahmed ;

(b) Call for the trial court record in case FIR No. 140 of 2011 uls 448 IPC at PS Jamia Nagar titled as State vs. Imran Ahmed decided by Ld. MM-10, (South East), Saket Courts, Delhi; and Cr. Revision No. 204164/2016 decided by Ld. Principal District & Session Judge, South East District, Saket Courts titled as "Imran Ahmad (Since Deceased) through his Legal Heirs vs. State & Am;

(c) Pass any other or further order(s) as may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the Petitioners."

3.0. At this stage, it is submitted that the petitioner had pleaded guilty before the ld. Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 448 IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 448 IPC. Fine stood deposited.

3.1. Ld. counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the basis of the said conviction, the petitioner's sister/respondent no. 2 moved an application before the Ld. Magistrate seeking restoration of possession of the property i.e. one room with attached bathroom on first floor of property bearing No. B-2, Gulmohar Avenue, Tikona Park, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi- 110025. The said application was allowed by the Ld. M.M, South-East, Saket vide order dated 01.06.2015 directing for restoration of the possession of the said premises to the complainant/respondent no. 2 herein.

3.2. It is further submitted that against the above order, the petitioner had filed revision petition bearing no. 204164/2016 before the ld. ASJ, but the same was dismissed by Ld. ASJ vide order dated 05.09.2022. Hence this petition.

3.3. It is further submitted that both the Ld. M.M as well as Ld. ASJ failed to appreciate that the Ld. M.M. vide order dated 28.05.2013 had directed an opinion on the petitioner's mental health. But they still accepted his plea of guilt.

4.0. Issue notice.

6.0 Ms. Priyanka Dalal, Learned Prosecutor appears on advance notice on behalf of the State and requests for time for filing status report.

6.1. Ld. Prosecutor, however, in this respect submits that in para 13 of the impugned order, the Ld. ASJ has specifically noted that despite best efforts made by the Court, the deceased petitioner/his family members did not take the petitioner to the Medical Board and due to said reason, the Court was not able to give any opinion with respect to the mental health of the deceased i.e. whether he was unsound mind and was unable to stand trial. 7.0. Be filed.

8.0. List on 25.01.2023.

POONAM A. BAMBA, J OCTOBER 20, 2022/chandan Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:05.11.2022 19:11:24