Ajay B. Naik v. UOI &ORS.

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.

$-33 to 38 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 105/2013 & Crl.M.A. 425/2013 RAGHAVAN RAMANUJAM Petitioner Through;

Mr. Tanveer Ahmad, Mr. Arjun Mahajan, Mr. Rohan Garg, Mr. Puneet Relan & Mr. Satyam Chaudhary, Advs.

STATE & ANR.

Respondent Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State.

Mr. Suderhsan Raj an Mr. Arjun Gadhoke & Mr. Ghanshyam Bhati, Advs. for R-2/complainant.

Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv. for UOI.

+ CRL.M.C. 107/2013 & Crl.M.A. 428/2013 CAPTAIN AM KARANDIKAR Petitioner Mr. Tanveer Ahmad, Mr. Arjun Mahajan, Mr. Rohan Garg, Mr. Puneet Relan & Mr. Satyam Chaudhary, Advs.

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Respondent Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State.

Gadhoke & Mr. Ghanshyam Bhati, Advs. for R-2/complainant.

+ CRL.M.C. 448/2013 & Crl.M.A. 1437/2013 AJAY B.NAIK Petitioner Mr. Rohit Rao N. & Mr. Devahuti Advs.

CRL.M.C. I05/20I3& conn.

p^gg j of 3

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Respondent Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State.

Gadhoke «fe Mr. Ghanshyam Bhati, Advs. for R-2/complainant.

+ W.P.(CRL) 199/2011&Crl.M.A. 1680/2011 A M KARANDIKAR Petitioner Mr. Tanveer Ahmad, Mr. Arjun Mahajan, Mr. Rohan Garg, Mr. Puneet Relan & Mr. Satyam Chaudhary, Advs.

Respondent Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv. for UOl.

Gadhoke & Mr. Ghanshyam Bhati, Advs. for complainant.

UOl + W.P.(CRL) 1819/2012 AJAY B. NAIK Petitioner Mr. Rohit Rao N. & Mr. Devahuti Advs.

UOl &ORS.

Respondents Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv. for UOl.

Gadhoke & Mr. Ghanshyam Bhati, Advs. for R-2/complainant.

W.P.(CRL) 1899/2010 & Crl.M.A. 21524/2010 RAGHVAN RAMANUJAM Petitioner Mr. Tanveer Ahmad, Mr. Arjun Mahajan, Mr. Rohan Garg, Mr. Puneet Relan & Mr. Satyam Chaudhary, Advs.

CRL.M.C. 105/2013& conn.

Respondents Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv. for UOI.

Gadhoke & Mr. Ghanshyuam Bhati, Advs. for complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

ORDER

% 19.05.2017 UOI AND ANR Ei-t'

After some hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners in this batch of cases submitted, on instructions, that they may be permitted to withdraw these petitions with liberty to raise the contentions and defences urged here before the Trial Magistrate at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., particularly on the question of validity of the sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C., sufficiency of the evidence and the question of limitation.

The learned counsel for the respondent-State submits he has nothing to say in the matter.

The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. ,r R GAU MAY 19, 2017 nk CRL.M.C. 105/20J3& conn.