Allowed

Amit Kumar @ Shaym Singh v. State

Delhi HC13 Jan 2020W.P.(CRL)/78/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the petitioner's petition directing the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation within two months and file a final report. The petitioner was also directed to provide details and originals of documents submitted in a related case.

What did the court decide?

Completion of investigation and filing of final report within two months; petitioner to submit details and document originals to the Investigating Officer.

Amit Kumar @ Shaym Singh Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 78/2020

¶4

AMIT KUMAR @ SHAYM SINGH

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

Through Mr Vijay Kinger Ms Roopa Nagpal, Advocate with petitioner in person.

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE ..... Respondent Through Ms Nandita Rao, ASC Crl for State. Insp. Ramesh Prasad Singh, ATO/P.S. M.S. Park.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R

¶10

% 13.01.2020

¶11

CRL.M.A. 462/2020

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

The application is disposed of.

¶14

W.P.(CRL) 78/2020

¶15

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , praying as under:-

¶16

“Direct the concerned IO of the subject FIR No. 160/2012, P.S. Mansarovar Park, Delhi to complete the pending investigation, if any within a definite time frame and file the charge-sheet before the concerned Court.”

¶17

FIR No. 160/2012 was registered against the petitioner on 04.09.2012

¶18

and the petitioner was made an accused therein. The said FIR was registered at the instance of Naveen Kumar Sharma and Manish Kumar Sharma (the complainants). The complainants claimed that they are owners of the suit property bearing No. 1/A, 4639 Ram Nagar Extension, Delhi. They claimed that they have inherited the said property from their grandmother, Smt Bhagwati Devi, in terms of a will dated 07.08.2008. They had alleged that the petitioner, who is accused in the said FIR, had forged her GPA and SPA regarding the property and had been falsely claiming interest in the property in question. Thus, the principal dispute in the present case is whether the documents set up by the petitioner are, in fact, forged.

¶19

Ms Rao, learned ASC states that the petitioner had submitted a Memorandum of Settlement stating that he had resolved the disputes with the complainants. She further states there would be no difficulty in completing the investigation and filing a final report, provided the original of the documents in question are submitted to the Investigating Officer (IO). 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that all the originals of the relevant documents such as the GPA, SPA, etc. have already been submitted by the petitioner in another case. He states that the petitioner would provide the complete details of the same to the IO in the present case. 7. Significant time has elapsed since the aforesaid FIR was lodged and there is considerable merit in the petitioner’s grievance that a final report ought to have been filed. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the IO is directed to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within a period of two months from today and file a final report. 9. The petitioner shall appear before the IO on 17.01.2020 at 10.30 a.m.

¶20

and provide all the necessary details of the case and the name of the IO (of that case) to whom the originals of the documents in question have been handed over. If the originals of the documents have not been handed over as contended, the petitioner shall ensure that the same are handed over to the IO on that date.

¶21

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶22

Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶23

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶24

JANUARY 13, 2020 pkv

Amit Kumar @ Shaym Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar @ Shaym Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daya Shankar & Ors. Vs the State & Anr.

Prateek Sethi & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Navdeep Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Dr. Sanjana Jain Vs State & Anr.

Dharmender Kumar Tandan Vs State

Gulafshah Vs State & Ors.

Sartaj Vs State

Lalit @ Lucky Vs State NCT of Delhi

Prateek Sethi & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Ms. Aruna & Anr. Vs the Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Sanjay Suri Vs State & Anr.

Pankaj Sharma & Ors. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Abhimanyu Shah & Anr. Vs State & Anr.

Akram Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.