Balbir Singh vs Govt Of Nct & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 1861 Del

$~38
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CRL.M.C. 977/2012


%            Judgment delivered on:19th March, 2012

      BALBIR SINGH                                       ..... Petitioner
                              Through:   Mr. Atul T.N., Adv. with Mr.
                                         Harsh Raghuvanshi, Adv.

                     versus



      GOVT OF NCT & ANR                                ..... Respondents

                    Through:             Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for
                                         the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (oral)

+     CRL. M.A. 3399/2012 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 977/2012

1. Notice issued.

2. Learned APP Ms. Rajdipa Behura accepts notice on behalf of the State.

3. Vide the instant petition the petitioner has prayed to quash /set aside the observations made in para 13 of the impugned orders dated 02.02.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in criminal complaint No.1240/3/07 titled 'Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation

v. Balbir Singh', which reads as under:-

"This contention of the accused appears to be without any ground and the accused failed to prove any evidence regarding title. Admittedly accused was employee of the complainant. The DW1 examined by the accused in support of the ownership of the disputed property did not brought anything on record or lead any evidence to disprove that the complainant company is not the owner of the quarter in question."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a civil suit bearing CS(OS) No.1757/2007 for possession, permanent and mandatory injunction is pending adjudication before another Bench of this court.

5. Further, it is submitted that though, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is in his favour, however, the observations made, mentioned above, may come in his way during the proceedings of the civil suit.

6. I here make it clear that the observations made by the learned Trial Court are absolutely right because of the fact that the petitioner herein did not produce any document/evidence to the effect mentioned therein. However, if the petitioner is able to produce material witness and evidence in civil suit mentioned above then the observations made, as referred above, shall not come in his way during the proceedings of civil suit.

7. No further order is required.

8. Criminal M.C.977/2012 is disposed of on above terms.

CRL.M.A.3398/2012 (For stay of the operation of impugned part of order dated 02.02.2012)

In view of the orders passed in Crl.M.C.977/2012 the present application has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.

SURESH KAIT, J MARCH 19, 2012 nn