The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and related proceedings after the petitioner produced a corrected pay order in court regarding Incident Officer respondent no.2.
The FIR in question and the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
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.
$~14.
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitin Tewari, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.S. Kundu, ASC for Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC with ASI Rakesh, PS Kirti Nagar
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
%
O R D E R 09.12.2016
Respondent no.2 is present and is identified by the IO. Mr. Kundu appears for Ms. Rao on behalf of the State.
The petitioner has tendered in court the corrected pay order drawn in favour of respondent no.2. A copy of the same is placed on record. In view of the aforesaid, the FIR in question and the proceedings arising therefrom stands quashed. Dasti.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
DECEMBER 09, 2016
sr
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Kumar
State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors
Vipin Sanghi
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
