The petitioner, mother of the deceased, sought transfer of investigation into an FIR against deceased's husband to Crime Branch. The Court found death was due to illness (septicaemia) not foul play and no further directions were required.
No further directions required; petition disposed of.
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.
34# $~
| * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DE |
LHI AT NEW DELHI |
|---|---|
| + W.P.(CRL) 1527/2018 |
|
| BIMLA CHAUDHARY Represented by: versus |
..... Petitioner Mr. Ritesh Agrawal, Mr. Tushar Jalan and Mr. Sohel Rishabh, Advocates. |
| GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Represented by: |
..... Respondents Mr. Sanjay Lao, Additional Standing Counsel for State with Ms. Hemlata Rawat and Mr. Siddharth Sindhu, Advocate with Inspector Yogeshwar Singh, PS Kalkaji. Mr. Rakesh Malviya and Mr. Shubhank Choudhary, Advocates for respondent No.5. |
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R
% 19.09.2018
29th August, 2016 after Abha Choudhary was admitted to the hospital on 8th August, 2016 being in comma for nearly one year thereafter.
of investigation affidavits and certificates were taken from the Registrar of Marriage where Amal Sharma had claimed himself to be a bachelor and the documetns were sent to the FSL for verification of the signatures. On receipt of FSL report Sections 420/468/471 IPC have also been added.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 ‘vn’
W.P.(CRL) 1527/2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to directions for transferring the investigation of FIR No. 534/2016 to the Crime Branch or an independent agency.
Bimla Chaudhary
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Mukta Gupta
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
