Joginder Sansanwal vs State & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 5577 Del

              *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                  Date of Reserve 24th November, 2010

                                 Date of Order: December 07, 2010

                                     + Crl.MC No.2508/2010
%                                                                             07.12.2010
         Joginder Sansanwal                                          ...Petitioner

         Versus

         State & Ors.                                                ...Respondents

Counsels:

Mr. L.S. Chaudhary for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.      Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


                                            JUDGMENT

1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 9th March, 2010 passed by learned

MM, New Delhi whereby he dismissed a complaint of the petitioner holding that no

offence against the accused persons was made out.

2. A perusal of complaint and the order of the learned MM would show that as per

the allegations of the petitioner, the petitioner was induced into horse racing and betting

by the respondent no.2 and the petitioner lost considerable amount in racecourse and in

purchasing a horse. The learned trial court came to conclusion that giving advice to put

bet on horse racing does not amount to cheating. I consider that the learned trial court

rightly came to conclusion that no offence of cheating was made out in this case. If the

Crl. MC No.2508/2010 Page 1 Of 2 petitioner had not been interested in betting and earning easy money through betting, the

petitioner would not have sought advice of accused. The very fact that the petitioner

sought advice of the respondent and petitioner could be induced into horse racing or

purchase of a horse for racing and actively participated in betting, shows that the

petitioner himself was responsible for his woes. The complaint filed by the petitioner

against the respondents was rightly dismissed by the learned MM being not

maintainable. There is no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.

December 07, 2010                                    SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




Crl. MC No.2508/2010                                                       Page 2 Of 2