- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 1 November 2017
- Bench
- S. Ravindra Bhat, Sanjeev Sachdeva
- Case no.
- LPA 701/2017
Follow Delhi High CourtFollow S. Ravindra BhatFollow Sanjeev Sachdeva
Judgment
O R D E R %
01.11.2017 CM No.39321/2017 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. LPA 701/2017 & CM No.39322/2017 (seeking permission to file additional documents) We are of the opinion that the writ petition itself was not maintainable; the appellant had a grievance with respect to the alleged criminal activity and non-registration of the First Information Report. He had recourse to an expedient remedy under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant is, however, aggrieved, that the status report reflects allegedly false and inaccurate facts. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. It is clarified that, in case, the appellant approaches the LPA 701/2017 Page 2 concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petition will be dealt with and decided on its own merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the remarks in the status report as quoted in the impugned order. The impugned order shall also not come in the way of the petitioner. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J NOVEMBER 01, 2017 st
Case details
Parties and counsel
LPA 701/2017 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 701/2017 SHIV SHANKAR GUPTA ..... Appellant Through Mr. Shakil Akhtar, Advocate. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal with Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee, Advocates for respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 6. SI Rahul Kumar, P.S. Kalkaji. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.