Crl.M.C. 222/2007, Delhi HC: Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR. The Court dismissed the petition as infructuous because a closure report was already filed for related allegations in a prior CBI case, leaving nothing to survive.
Petition dismissed as infructuous due to prior filing of closure report; plea for future cause of action included.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~5
THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Spl. PP for CBI with Ms. Garima Singh Yadav, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 19.07.2016
By the present petition the petitioner had sought quashing of FIR No.343/2005 under Sections 406/409/415/420 IPC registered at PS Kalkaji investigation whereof was transferred to CBI on 30th June, 2015 and the case No. RC.BD1/2015/E0007 was registered thereon.
Learned Standing Counsel for the CBI on instructions from the investigating officer DSP Shri A.K. Gupta submits that a closure report has been filed in the above-noted RC number as in the status report it had already been revealed that on the same allegations an earlier FIR was registered by the CBI i.e. RC.BD1/2012/E0006. Since a closure report had already been filed nothing survives in the present petition.
Petition is dismissed as infructuous.
CRL.M.C. 222/2007 page 1 of 2
In case any order adverse to the petitioner is passed by the learned Special Court the same would be a fresh cause of action to the petitioner.
Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JULY 19, 2016 ‘ga’
page 2 of 2
CRL.M.C. 222/2007
K.C. Palanisamy
The State
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
