Praveen Kumar Alias Prashant v. State Gnct Of Delhi

$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1864/2018 PRAVEEN KUMAR ALIAS PRASHANT ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.O.N.Sharma, Advocate.

versus STATE GNCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for State with ACP Rajender Pathania, ACP Mehrauli and Insp. Anil Smota, SHO, PS. Fatehpur Beri and SI S.K.Singh, P.S. Fatehpur Beri, Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R

% 18.06.2018 Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to file certain documents along with an application. The application and the documents sought to be filed are taken on record. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 1864/2018 Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State has sought to place on record the status report. It is taken on record.

During the course of hearing and the perusal of the status report, it transpires that the grievance of the petitioner is directed, inter alia, against Mr.Amir Pasrich, an Advocate, with whom my daughter and my son-in-law have worked at one point of time. At this stage it is therefore, disclosed to the learned counsel for the petitioner as also to Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the

State. Both of them outrightly stated that it shall not matter for the matter being heard by this very Court. Hearing of this matter was thus carried further.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not press the petition and a direction may be issued for the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, where the complaint is pending for registration of FIR on the allegations made thereunder, for early disposal of the complaint.

In view of the fact that the petitioner has already filed a complaint for the relief similar to the relief prayed for in the present petition and therefore, parallel proceedings are not tenable as also, in view of the prayer that has come to be made by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing, the instant petition is disposed of being not maintainable, but, with a direction to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and dispose of the same expeditiously, keeping in view the ratio of the judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors. (2014) 1 SCC (Crl.) 524 and the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. A.K.