Nizamuddin v. Ramzani & ANR

Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

$~ 26 & * CRL.M.C. 5081/2015 & CRL.M.A. 18311/15, 18314/15, 8374/17 None.

Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Adv. for R-1.

CRL.M.C. 965/2016 & CRL.M.A. 18274/17, 4089/2016 None.

Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Adv. for R-l.

HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA 18.07.2018 There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. It is 4.45 P.M.

The petition and the pending applications are dismissed in default.

:.GAUB^, JULY 18, 2018 srb /W, a/ ^ AM Id/A I, Curn() ■-"Jojlohp r) fj.

V .V -r.r

$-18 * CRL.M.C. 965/2016 Ms. Dezy Gaur, Advocate Nemo.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA 17.09.2018 Crl.M.A.32188/2018 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

Crl.M.A.32186/2018 ffor recalling of order dated 18.07.2018) Crl.M.A.32187/2018 /for delav) i Issue notice of the applications to the respondents/non-applicants, by all pennissible modes, on steps to be taken within a week, returnable on lO'^ October, 2018.

R K GA JA, J.

SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 vk AP i ...

1/ ni P ^ -ii , ■?

'a

$~8&9 CRL.M.C. 5081/2015 Mr. R.K. Sharma with Mr. Mohit Malik, Advocates.

Ms. Saira Parveen for Mr. Sonal Sinha, Adv. for R-1.

Mr. L.K. Singh, Adv. for R-2.

CRL.M.C. 965/2016 Mr. R.K. Sharma with Mr. Mohit Malik, Advocates.

Ms. Saira Parveen, Adv. for R-1.

Mr. L.K. Singh, Adv. for R-2.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA 10.10.2018 CRL.M.A. Nos. 31685/2018 & 31686/2018 in CRL.M.C. 5081/201S CRL.M.A. Nos. 32186/2018 & 32187/2018 in CRL.M.C. 965/2016 The criminal misc. nos. 5081/2015 and 965/2016 had been brought by the applicant to seek quashing of two different complaint cases - CC no.4419/01/100 and CC no.34/1 - which had been instituted by Nadeem Ahmed and Naseem, they being second respondent respectively in the two matters, the prayer essentially being that on account of a settlement between CRLM.C. 5081/2015 & 965/2016 Page ] of3

the applicant (the petitioner) on one hand and Ramzani (first respondent in each matter) on the other, the continuance of the criminal proceedings in the said criminal complaints of the respective second respondents were in the nature of the abuse of process of law. In the first captioned petition, by order dated 15.12.2015 stay against the proceedings before the trial court in the respective complaint case was granted. Both the said petitions came to be dismissed in default by common order passed on 18.07.2018. Thereafter, the applications for recall of the said order dated 18.07.2018 have been moved along with applications for condonation of delay, they being Crl.M.A. Nos. 31685/2018, 31686/2018, 32186/2018 and 32187/2018. On the said applications, notices were issued to the non-applicants by order dated 10.09.2018 and 17.09.

2018 respectively. The counsel for the second respondents in these matters, i.e. the complainant of the two complaint cases submitted that misleading statement had been made before the Metropolitan Magistrate in respect of the first complaint case, he placing on record copy of the proceedings recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 14.09.2018. It is noted that Mr. A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate representing the applicant (accused in the said case) had informed the Metropolitan Magistrate that on his application, the petition had been restored by this Court and there was a stay operating in the case. This submission for and on behalf of the applicant in the context of the first case was factually incorrect and undoubtedly misleading.

When the above-mentioned facts were brought to the light, the counsel representing the applicant in both these matters sought pass over pleading ignorance. The matters have been taken up again after some time. CRL.M.C.

The counsel for the applicant now regrets the wrong submissions that have been made before the Metropolitan Magistrate in the first said complaint case on 14.09.2018 tendering unconditional apology. He also submitted that the applicant now reconciles to the fact that on the basis of a settlement with the first respondent Ramzani, quashing of the complaint cases filed by the second respondent in each case cannot be asked for inasmuch as the agreement with Ramzani cannot bind the third parties. Thus, the counsel for the applicant submits, on instructions, that he may be permitted to withdraw the applications for recall of the order of dismissal of the main petitions, the petitioner reserving the right to raise all defences in the proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

It having been made clear that there is no stay against the continuance of the proceedings in the aforementioned criminal complaint cases, the applications at hand are dismissed as withdrawn. K G BA OCTOBER 10, 2018 srb CRL.M. C. 5081/2015 & 965/2016