PUBLICATION

PUBLICATION

                                                                                   JUDGMENTS – ADVOCATE GURMEET SINGH

1.  SUNIL KUMAR V MADHUBALA
CIVIL SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND MENSE PROFIT & APP. U/S 340 CRPC
C.S. NO. 98 / 2014
While I appeared for the defendant the present suit was dismissed by this judgment along with an application filed by plaintiff u/s 340 CrPC which was also dismissed while citing various judgments of various courts.

2. HARI SINGH V STATE & ANR.
WRIT PETITION FOR HAEBEUS CORPUS &SEEKING IMMIDIATE RELEASE OF PETITIONER
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) 596 / 2018
I appeared for the petitioner who was in illegal custody of the respondent after the issuance of Non Bailable Warrants on the behest of certain alleged non-payment of dues. However the Ld. Division bench without commenting upon the custody granted the petitioner liberty to seek quashing of NBW issued illegally u/s 69 Land Revenue Act.

3. HARI SINGH V STATE
PETITION CHALLANGING THE ILLEGAL NON BAILABLE WARRANTS ISSUED U/S 69 LAND REVENUE ACT
CRL. M.C. NO. 985/2018
I appeared for the petitioner and keeping in view the illegal custody and the warrants u/s 69 Land Revenue Act issued by Assistant Collector, Narela, Delhi being illegal and the arrest being illegal, the petitioner was directed to be released forthwith immediately within 48 hours of his arrest.

4. ATI ULLAH V STATE
PETITION SEEKING DIRECTION TO S.H.O. TO RECEIVE A COMPLAINT AS PER LAW AND TAKE ACTION
WP CRL. 2187/2017
I appeared for the Petitioner and whereby SHO refused to receive a complaint and therefore the Petitioner was forced to file a petition before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court seeking directions qua the SHO to receive the complaint at the police station and act on the complaint as per law. Petition was allowed.

5. CHANDER SINGH V STATE
PETITION SEEKING BAIL U/s 302 IPC etc.
BAIL APP. No. 1112 of 2014
While appearing for the petitioner the Ld.Judge of Hon’ble Delhi High court agreed to grant regular bail even while sitting in vacation bench holding that as the trial will take time and the petitioner was in jail for over a year, bail is a right and keeping the petitioner in jail was exception.

6. MOHD FARMAAN V KRISHNA DEVI

PETITION U/S 226/227 C.O.I. SEEKING SETTING ASIDE ORDER
C.M.(M) 271 of 2017
While appearing for the Petitioner the Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed that the impugned order apparently suffers from blatant error and prima facie is untenable in the eyes of law and therefore remanded the matter back to trial court for fresh adjudication.

7. FATEH SINGH V STATE
PETITION SEEKING INVESTIGATION OF FIR THROUGH CBI / CRIME BRANCH
W.P.(CRL) 2019 of 2016
While appearing for the Petitioner the petition was allowed and investigation of FIR was transferred and directed to be done through Crime Branch as the Accused were high officials of Delhi Police.

8. VISHAL SHERA V STATE
PETITION SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION
W.P.(CRL) 2095/2014
WHILE APPEREARING FOR THE PETITIONER THE HON’BLE DELHI HIGH COURT WAS PLEASED TO DIRECT THE SHO CONCERNED TO PROVIDE POLICE PROTECTION AS AND WHEN THE NEED AROSE.

9. VISHAL SHERA V STATE
PETITION SEEKING CANCELLATION OF NBW AND SEEKING STAY OF ANY COERSIVE PROCESS
CRL.M.C. 5494/2014
While appearing for the petitioner the hon’ble delhi high court was pleased to direct the stay of any coercive process against the petitioner and was also pleased to direct the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the ld trial court for the actual cancellation of nbw and stay was also granted.

10. HARI SINGH V STATE
PETITION SEEKING DETERMINATION OF QUESTION OF LAW
W.P.(C) 920 of 2017
The law of the land as laid down in Prem Cashew Industriesand Ors. vs. Zen Pereo: 88 (2000) DLT 59 was that the presence of accused is not required for cancellation of nbw against him and the same was not being followed by various metropolitian magistrates and a direction qua the same was sought before the hon’ble delhi high court. Liberty granted to file the petition.

11. MADHUBALA V SUNIL KUMAR
PETITION SEEKING SETTING ASIDE OF ORDER
C.M.(M) 811 OF 2014
PETITION WAS ALLOWED &THE ORDER WHEREBY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINATION WAS CLOSED WAS SET ASIDE SUBJECT TO TERMS. OBJECTIONS FILED WERE ALSO DISPOSED OFF DURING THE PETITION BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT.

12. MOHD MUDASSAR NAZAR V STATE
PETITION SEEKING QUASHING OF FIR U/S 498A, 506, 34 IPC
CRL.M.C. 3095/2015
Petition seeking FIR pending against the petitioner was quashed on merits.

13. SHAHJAHAN V STATE
CRL.M.C. 3003/2015
PETITION SEEKING QUASHING OF FIR U/S 498A, 506, 34 IPC
Petition seeking FIR pending against the petitioner was quashed on merits.

14. RANDEEP KAUR V AAYUSH SIBBAL
CM(M) 1126/2014
PETITION SEEKING IMPLIMENTATION OF PROCESS TO BE SERVED THROUGH EMAIL ALLOWED BY HON’BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND DIRECTIONS TO FORM COMMIITTEE FOR IMPLIMENTATION OF THE SAID ORDER WAS ALSO PASSED.

15. RAM LAL ARYA V STATE
CRL.M.C. 20/2017
156 3 CR.P.C. PETITION WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT WAS RESTORED BY HON’BLE DELHI HIGH COURT EX PARTE.

16. SALMA V STATE
CRL.M.C. 2975/2015
CANCELLATION OF BAIL PETITION WAS DISPOSED OFF WITH THE DIRECTION THAT ACCUSED WILL NOT CONTACT OR INTIMIDATE COMPLAINANT OR ANY OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF COMPLAINANT.

17. RAMDEV YADAV V SBI
CM(M) 1165/2013
WHILE APPEREARING FOR THE PETITIONER THE PETITION WAS ALLOWED AND WRITTEN STATEMENT TAKEN ON RECORD AND HEARING OF SUIT DIRECTED TO BE EXPEDITED

18. SUMAN V STATE
W.P.(CRL) 393/2016
FIR U/S 420, 448, 34 IPC QUASHED.

19. SUNITA V YOGENDER SAINI
CRL.M.C. 952/2014
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. CASE EXPEDITED. PETITION ALLOWED.

20. SUNITA V STATE
CRL.M.C. 3580/2014
IN MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES HUSBAND & WIFE DISPUTES / FIR / COMPLAINT, INSTEAD OF PRESSING ON CANCELAATION OF BAIL, THE PETITIONER SHOULD PRESS ON EXECUTION SEEKING PAYMENT OF MONEY IN MAINTAINANCE

21. MOHD SUMER V STATE
CRL.M.C. 4266/2017
FIR U/S POCSO AND IPC QUASHED

22. AMAN KHURANA V STATE
BAIL APPLN. 438/2018
ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED SUBJECT TO JOINING OF INVESTIGATION.

23. HARI SINGH V PREM SINGH
CRL.M.C. 2495/2014

24. HARI SINGH V SURESH PAWAR
CRL.M.C. 2512/2014

25. HARI SINGH V SURESH PAWAR
CRL.M.C. 2514/2014
IN 138 NIA MATTERS EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL APPEREANCE BEFORE TRIAL COURT GRANTED TO GOVT. OFFICER AND LIBERTY GRANTED TO ADDRESS ARGUMENTS ON FRAMING OF NOTICE AND TRIAL COURT DIRECTED TO PASS DETAILED ORDERS. WHILE ALSO HOLDING THAT DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED POSSIBLE IF NO CASE MADE OUT DURING ARGUMENTS ON POINT OF FRAMING OF NOTICE. THE DISCHARGE AT POINT OF ARGUMENTS ON NOTICE WILL NOT TANTAMOUNT TO REVIEW OF ORDER AND IT IS POSSIBLE AND IS ALLOWED.

26. HARI SINGH V AJEET SINGH
RSA 190/2014 and C.M.No.12222/2014
STAY OF MONEY DECREE GRANTED SUBJECT TO DEPOSIT OF 50 % OF DECREETAL AMOUNT

27. MAYA V STATE
CRL.REV.P. 784/2014
AGAINST THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED, CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION WILL BE MAINTAINABLE AND CRIMINAL REVISION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. LIBERTY GRANTED AND DELAY ALSO TO BE CONDONED AS PETITIONER WAS BONAFIDELY PERSUING ITS REMEDIES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

28. SUNITA STATE
W.P.(CRL) 635/2014
FIR INVESTIGATION EXPEDITED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, UNDERTAKING OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER RECORDED.

29. JP SINGH V SUKHBIR SINGH
C.M.(M) 1142/2015
LD TRIAL COURT WAS DIRECTED BY HON’BLE DELHI HIGH COURT TO DISPOSE OFF APPLICATION U/S 39 RULE 1 AND 2 CPC EXPEDITIOUSLY.

30. SUKHBIR SINGH V JP SINGH
S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4036 of 2016
ANY JUDGMENT / ORDER PASSED WITHOUT ISSUING NOICE TO OTHER PARTY / HEARING OTHER SIDE IS ILLEGAL AND DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE.

31. MUKESH BHATIA V STATE
CRL.M.C. 5124/2015
SERVICE TO OTHER PARTY THROUGH SHO PERMITTED.

32. HARI SINGH V MEGH SINGH
CRL.M.C. 2930/2015
IF APPLICATION SEEKING CANCELATION OF COERSIVE PROCESS IS PENDING THEN THE APPLICATION NEEDS TO BE DECIDED FORST AND THEN TRIAL COURT SHOULD PROCEED WITH MATTER, TILL THAT HAPPENS STAY WAS GRANTED.

33. FATEH SINGH V STATE
CRL.M.C. 2924/2015
FIR PROCEEDINGS STAYED TILL FURTHER ORDERS AS NO CASE MADE OUT AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN THE FIR.

34. AKHILESH SINGH V SURESH PAWAR
CRL.M.C. 1763/2015

35. AKHILESH SINGH V SURESH PAWAR
CRL.M.C. 1756/2015
DESPITE STRIKE THE COURT MUST DECIDE THE PENDING APPLICATIONs ON MERITS AND NOT DISMISS FOR NON PROSECUTION EVEN ON STRIKES.

36. JP SINGH V STATE
CRL.M.C. 1354/2015
FIR UNDER SECTIONS 193/196/419/420/467/468/471/34/120-B IPC, AT P.S. EOWCRIME AND RAILWAYS, DELHI QUASHED BY DELHI HIGH COURT. Even though the FIR was false still High court keeping in view the settlement between the parties quashed the subject FIR.

37. SHAIRA V STATE
W.P.(CRL) 506/2015
Police protection by state granted to a women in view of the recent attack during the pendency of the police protection petition before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

38. W.P.(CRL) 2702/2015
SALMA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.

39. + W.P.(CRL) 2705/2015
GULAB NABI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.

39. + W.P.(CRL) 2706/2015
SARIF ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.

40. + W.P.(CRL) 2707/2015
NAFEES ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
W.P.(Crl.) 2702/2015 & connected petitions. Page 2 of 7
versus
STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.

41. + W.P.(CRL) 2715/2015
NADEEM ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.

42. + W.P.(CRL) 602/2016
MOHD YAMIN ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ORS ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.
AND

43. + W.P.(CRL) 603/2016
MOHD YUSUF ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ORS ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.
The hon’ble delhi high court passed a detailed judgment while granting liberty to the petitioners to move to the court of sessions for cancellation of bail and affirming the police protection order granted to the petitioner by the ld mm is correct and legal in the eyes of law.

44. W.P.(CRL) 1748/2015
SMT SHAIRA V STATE
Petition seeking expeditious and fair investigation of FIR allowed.

45. CRL.M.C. 4372/2016 & Crl.M.A. 18241/2016
HARI SINGH V STATE
Accused has no right in process of examination of witness of complainant. Accused can only cross examine and cannot interfere while examination of complainant witness is going on.

46. CRL.M.C. 2741/2016
MUKESH BHATIA V RAM GOPAL GUPTA
Delhi high court held that sending the cheque in question to the FSLwould take another four to five years so not a good option to send complaint to fsl.

47. CRL.M.C. 1966/2016
BEAM MONEY PVT. LTD Vs. ANIL KUMAR BHATT
Weather stay of proceedings is granted or not of trial court proceedings, it means that the order challenged is subject to the outcome of the petition filed assailing the order of the trial court.

48. CRL.M.C. 1139/2016
FATEH SINGH V STATE
Trial court was not deciding an aapplication and was keeping it pending, however the trial court was directed to dispose off the application within 20 days of passing of the present order, in the interest of justice.

49. W.P.(CRL) 938/2016
FARIDA PARVEEN V STATE
Keeping in view the slow pace of investigation, the IO/SHO/ State was directed to expedite the investigation in the subject FIR and an undertaking was recorded to the said effect of the IO/State.

50. W.P.(CRL) 691/2016 & CRL.M.A. 3816/2016
HARI SINGH V STATE
Keeping in view the slow pace of investigation, the IO/SHO/ State was directed to expedite the investigation in the subject FIR and an undertaking was recorded to the said effect of the IO/State to file chargesheet within 3 months.

51. W.P.(CRL) 393/2016
SUMAN & ORS V STATE
FIR u/s 448/420 /34 IPC quashed on the basis of settlement.

52. W.P.(CRL) 2019/2016
FATEH SINGH V STATE
Investigation transferred to Crime Branch, Special Cell keeping in view that there are police officers involved as an accused in the subject FIR.

53. CM(M) 380/2017 and CM APPL.13531/2017 (stay)
MUKESH BHATIA V VINOD KUMAR SATRAWALA
Warrant of arrest in execution proceedings without following due process is illegal and was set aside.

54. CM(M) 271/2017
MOHD FARMAAN versusKRISHNA DEVI
Order passed by trial court was prima facie wrong and contained error apparent on its face and thus entitles to the petitioner to get it rectified /set aside by trial court. Leave and liberty granted to approach trial court and rectify order.

55. CRL.M.C. 20/2017
RAM LAL ARYA V STATE
156 (3) CrPC petition was dismissed for non appereance as counsel was busy in another court. The petition was restored as counsel’s being busy in another court does not warrant a dismissal of case. Petition allowed.

………….to be continued.