Surender Kumar v. State

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) + CRL. M.C. 3452/2011

¶1Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed the following:- a. Set aside the order dated 26.07.2011 passed in case titled State Vs. Sattar Ali and Ors. in FIR no. 464/2010, PS-Timarpur and thereby issue the directions to the Ld. Trial Court to issue the summons to the defence witnesses mentioned in column b to f in para 4 of the application filed by the petitioner. b. Any other order/s may kindly be passed which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶2During trial, the petitioner moved an application for issuing summons / notices to the defence witnesses as mentioned in the said application. The said application was partly allowed vide order dated 26.07.2011. In the said order, the prayer at serial no. A and G was allowed and prayer at serial no. B to F was not allowed.

¶3After going through the application, made by the petitioner, I am of the view that Ld. Trial Judge should have allowed the application in the interest of justice.

¶4Accordingly the order dated 26.07.2011 is set aside to the extent: prayer of the petitioner not allowed.

¶5Vide order dated 17.10.2011, proceedings before the trial court were stayed.

¶6Since the petition has been disposed, the petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 26.11.2011 the date already fixed for directions.

¶7Crl.M.C. 3452/2011 is allowed on the above terms and disposed of accordingly.

¶8Since Crl. M.C. No.3452/2011 is allowed, Crl. M.A.

No.12237/2011 become infructuous and disposed of as such.

SURESH KAIT,J OCTOBER 31, 2011 jg

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3452/2011 % Judgment delivered on: 31st October, 2011 SURENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. and Sandeep Mittal, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.