CBI v. Krishna Kumar

ORDER o/o

22.n.2011 Crl. M.A. No. 10635/2011 ampleadment) By this application the applicant, who is the co-accused of the Respondent Kiishan Kumar who had sought permission to become the approverwhich was declinedby the learnedMetropolitanMagistrateseeks impleadment. Learnedcounselfor the applicantaftersome argumentsseeks leaveto withdraw the application. Applicationis dismissedas withdrawn. CRL.REV.P.165/2011 Page 1 of2 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. CRL.REV.P. 165/2011 Learned Standing Counsel for the CBI and the Respondent Krishan Kumar point out that a revision petition against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate not permitting Krishan Kumar to become an approver is already pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In view of the fact that the revision filed by the Respondent against the impugned order is already pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which is the Court of first instance, and since the pleadings in the revision petition filed by the Respondent are complete, the present revision petition filed by the CBI is also directed to be transferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to be heard along with the Revision Petition filed by Krishan Kumar. Registry is directed to send the file of this petition to the learned Additional Sessions Judge expeditiously so that it is listed with the connectedmatteronthe 9^'^ December,2011.

MUKTA GUPTA, J. NOVEMBER 22, 2011 'vn' CRL.RE V.P. 165/2011 Page 2 of2

6# $~ IN THE HIGH COURT QF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 165/2011 Qgj Petitioner Through: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel, Mr. Y.K. Saxena, Spl. P.P and Mr. Uday Prakash, Advocate. versus KRISHNAKUMAR Respondent Through; Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.B. Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. S.K. Santoshi, Advocates for the applicant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA