October 25, 2021 10:24 PM

New Delhi (Face2News)

On 25.09.2021 while hearing matter in case FIR No. 85/20 PS Dayalpur Ld. Court of CMM Karkardooma (Kkd) Courts had passed an order and imposed a cost of Rs. 5000/- against Delhi Police directed CP, Delhi for a enquiry so that the said amount be deducted from the salary of responsible person.

Hence, following the due procedure, a Revision Petition against impugned order was filed in the Ld. Court of District & Session Judge. The revision petition was listed in the ld. DJ Court on 21.10.2021 and simultaneously the regular matter in this case was listed before the court of Ld. CMM. Special Public Prosecutor and SHO Dayalpur attended the matter in ld. DJ Court. During hearing, Ld. DJ called the TCR and after hearing pleas directed to stay the impugned order dated. 25.09.21 of ld. CMM and sent a copy of the order to concerned court i.e. court of ld. CMM.

While in the regular matter listed before the court of ld. CMM, ACP/Gokalpuri and IO appeared and submitted a written reply on behalf of DCP/North-East District. They also verbally apprised the ld. court about listing of revision petition in DJ Court in the same matter.

On 21.10.2021, late in the evening, an order was received in the said matter from the ld. CMM Court wherein the ld. court directed to call an explanation from CP, Delhi under the signatures through Secretary (Home) Union of India. The fresh order of ld. CMM was studied in consultation with legal expert, and as a legal remedy, a Misc. Application was filed before the ld. DJ Court against the impugned order of Ld. CMM dated 21.10.21.

Today i.e. 25.10.202, Ld. District & Session Judge decided the Misc. Application in favour of Delhi police and set aside the impugned order with the following remarks.

“Perusal of revision file shows that this court, vide order, dated 21.10.2021, had stayed the operation of the impugned order, dated 25.09.2021, and such, the directions given by ld. trial court in the later order, dated 21.10.2021 cannot be termed as non-compliance, which was apparently passed after stay was granted by this court

Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter and given the fact that the operation of the impugned order, dated 25.09.2021, was stayed by this court, vide order, dated 21.10.2021, the consequential directions emanating from the impugned order are not warranted.

Accordingly, order dated 21.10.2021, passed by the ld. trial court is, set aside.

Have something to say? Post your comment
Copyright © 2017, Face 2 News, All rights reserved. Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Disclaimers