The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of a defamation complaint. The court directed the petitioner to join ongoing investigations via video-conferencing and disposed of a pending application.
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.
$~8
SHWETA R. SHRIVASTAVA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Grover, Mr. Harshvardhan Sharma, Mr. Kuna, Mr. Prakhar Sharma and Mr. Arijit Narula, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Crl.) for the State with Ms. Charu Sharma, Mr. Arijit Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav Vats and Mr. Nikunj Bindal, Advocates with Inspector Uday Singh, P.S. Special Cell.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
O R D E R
% 06.09.2024
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2024 at 12:08:33
investigations. Consequently, the investigations have been undertaken. However, the petitioner had not been joining investigations. By the Order of this Court dated 30.08.2024, the petitioner had been directed to join the investigations, through video-conferencing. Presently, the Investigating Officer is out of station and now the investigations shall be carried out, in accordance with law.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
SEPTEMBER 6, 2024/RS
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2024 at 12:08:33
Shweta R. Shrivastava
The State of NCT of Delhi
Neena Bansal Krishna
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
