Rajkumar Indoria vs Gnct Of Delhi, New Delhi
2010 Latest Caselaw 3701 Del

09
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CONT.CAS(C) 247/2007
      RAJKUMAR INDORIA                ..... Petitioner
                       Through     Ms. Anu Mehta and Mr. Rubinder Pal,
                                   Advocates.
                 versus
      GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR      .... Respondent
                       Through     Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Additional
                                   Standing Counsel.
                                   Mr. A.K. Singh, Adv. for the applicant.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
            ORDER

% 09.08.2010

In view of the order passed in W.P.(Crl.) No.286/2007 no further

orders or directions are required in the present contempt petition. During

the pendency of the writ petition (Crl.) No.286/2007, this Court, vide order

dated 15th March, 2007 and 17th April, 2007, had directed that the

petitioner shall be provided with the same security, which was being

provided to him hitherto before by the police station Nabi Karim. In the

status report it is pointed out that after the order dated 15th March, 2007, a

permanent police picket was set up adjacent to the house of the petitioner

for security purpose. In addition, as and when requested, the local police

had provided PSO without fail to the petitioner. After order dated 17th

April, 2007, was passed by the Court, police officers of the police picket

were directed to accompany the petitioner when he left the house and petitioner was not required to approach the police station for the said

purpose. In the status report it is also mentioned that the petitioner had

made a complaint at police station Tilak Marg, which had resulted in

registration of FIR No.115/2007 under Sections 341/506/34 IPC. The

petitioner had alleged that four persons had got down from a car and

threatened him after entering in his car and had also shown him a pistol.

Investigation revealed that the petitioner had not given any name or car

number. Subsequently a cancellation report has been filed before the trial

court. Proceedings in this regard are pending and the petitioner herein is

opposing the cancellation report.

In view of the aforesaid position, no further orders are required to be

passed on the contempt petition. It is clarified that this Court has not

expressed any opinion on merits of the FIR No.115/2007 and the

cancellation report.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

AUGUST 09, 2010 NA