DHANPATI @ DHANWANTI vs STATE & ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~A-1 to A-3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on: 01.04.2025 + CRL.M.C. 2330/2017 DHANPATI @ DHANWANTI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.D. Rana and Ms. Nagina Johri, Advs. versus STATE & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Taneja, Adv. for R-2 2. + CRL.M.C. 2352/2017 & CRL.M.A.Nos.20235/2022 & 26924/2022 DHANPATI @ DHANPATI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.D. Rana and Ms. Nagina Johri, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddharth Khatana and Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, Advs. for R-2 3. + CRL.M.C. 2353/2017 & CRL.M.A.20487/2022 DHANPATI @ DHANWANTI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.D. Rana and Ms. Nagina Johri, Advs. versus STATE & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Chaudhary, Adv. for R-2 (through VC) Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 2330/2017 & connected maters Page 1 of 15 Digitally Signed By:DEEPAK SINGH Signing Date:07.04.2025 20:54:55 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGMENT VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. 1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioner Dhanpati @ Dhanwanti under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated 24.04.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-06, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, whereby three separate Revisions Petitions filed by Sushil Kumar, Rajender Singh and Dr. Kiran Jakhar were allowed and the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’, for short), Patiala House Court dated 04.07.2016 summoning the accused persons was held to be unsustainable in law and accordingly set aside. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petitions are that the petitioner/complainant namely Dhanpati @ Dhanwanti filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that on 09.12.2024,