Petitioner sought quashing of a summoning order and complaint pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts. Respondent No.1 indicated he would withdraw his complaint at the next hearing, so the petitioner withdrew the petition with liberty to revive it.
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.
$~20
KAMLESH RANA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Udian Sharma, Mr.J. Khurana, Mr.V. Gupta, Ms.Akshaya, Advocates
versus
RAVINDER KAUL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with SI Anurag Counsel for respondent No.1 appearance not given
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
O R D E R
% 12.07.2024
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 18/07/2024 at 11:49:00
respondent No.1 would be withdrawing his complaint against the petitioner. 4. In view of the aforesaid statement, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to revive the same, in case the need so arises.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
JULY 12, 2024 na
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 18/07/2024 at 11:49:00
1 issue framed by the court
Should the summoning order dated 25.05.2022 in Complaint Case No.23261/2016 and the complaint itself be quashed?
Kamlesh Rana
Ravinder Kaul
Respondent No. 2
Manoj Kumar Ohri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
