1 ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.8 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2161/2013 RAJESH MEHROTRA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF U.P.& ORS. RESPONDENT(S) (WITH OFFICE REPORT) Date : 05/08/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Appellant(s) Mr. Abhay Singh, Adv. Mr. Sumit Attri, Adv. Mr. Chiral Dugar, Adv. Ms. Vindhya Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawan Shree Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Anish Dayal, Adv. Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. [VINOD LAKHINA] COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2161/2013 RAJESH MEHROTRA ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF U.P.& ORS. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal challenges an order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 23 rd February, 2012 by which the criminal proceeding registered against the accused appellant under Sections 304/384/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) has been refused to be quashed by the High Court. The criminal proceeding in question has been registered on the basis of an order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) pursuant to a complaint filed by the respondent No.3.
2 3. We have perused the statements made in the complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and we have also taken note of the submissions made at the Bar that the accused appellant was the son-in-law (since divorced) of the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the accused appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the death certificate in respect of the death of the father of the complainant in respect of which incident the offence under Section 304 IPC has been alleged. Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the report of Police Station, Feelkhana, Kanpur Nagar dated 25 th September, 2011 submitted pursuant to the order of the Court wherein the Investigating Officer has stated that the dispute between the parties appears to be civil in nature.
3 5. The deceased was 99 years old at the time of his death and he was suffering from Chronic Malnutrition with Sev. Anaemia with Sec Respiratory Infection with Gasping lav GC and died of a sudden cardiorespiratory arrest. Taking into account the totality of the facts of the case, the circumstances in which death had occurred and also the report of the Police Station, Feelkhana, Kanpur Nagar dated 25 th September, 2011, we are of the view that the prosecution in the instant case under Section 304 IPC in all likelihood would be a lame prosecution and, therefore, in the fitness of things ought to be interdicted by this Court. Insofar as the offences alleged under Section 384 and 420 of the IPC are concerned, we find the allegations in support to be bald, vague and lacking in precision and clarity. 6. However, we cannot help observing, from the facts placed before us, that the accused who is the former son-in-law of the complainant has
4 indulged in certain acts which may amount to harassment of the complainant and his family. In fact, there are some other criminal cases pending between the parties in this regard. In the above circumstances, we deem it fit, while quashing the proceedings in question, to require the accused appellant to give an undertaking before this Court that he will conduct himself properly insofar as complainant and his family are concerned and will not cause any harassment or intimidation to them. In fact, the learned counsel for the accused appellant has assured the Court of such conduct on the part of the accused appellant. The aforesaid undertaking shall be filed before this Court within a period of four weeks from today. We make it clear that in the event of any breach of the undertaking it will be open for the respondent – complainant to draw the attention of this Court to such breach in which event orders, as may be appropriate, will be passed by the Court. We also make it clear that the present order will not
5 affect any other case between the parties that may be pending before the concerned authority/competent Court. All such cases will, naturally, be decided in accordance with law. 7. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. ....................,J. (RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J. ( N.V. RAMANA ) NEW DELHI AUGUST 05, 2015
b9 1 ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.8 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2161/2013 RAJESH MEHROTRA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF U.P.& ORS. RESPONDENT(S) (WITH OFFICE REPORT) Date : 05/08/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Appellant(s) Mr. Abhay Singh, Adv. Mr. Sumit Attri, Adv. Mr. Chiral Dugar, Adv. Ms. Vindhya Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawan Shree Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Anish Dayal, Adv. Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. [VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byVinod LakhinaDate: 2015.08.0715:38:41 ISTReason: 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2161/2013 RAJESH MEHROTRA ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF U.P.& ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal challenges an order of theHigh Court of Allahabad dated 23rd February, 2012by which the criminal proceeding registeredagainst the accused appellant under Sections304/384/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (forshort "IPC") has been refused to be quashed by theHigh Court. The criminal proceeding in questionhas been registered on the basis of an orderpassed by the learned Magistrate under Section156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short "Cr.P.C.") pursuant to a complaintfiled by the respondent No.3. 23. We have perused the statements made in thecomplaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. andwe have also taken note of the submissions made atthe Bar that the accused appellant was theson-in-law (since divorced) of the complainant.4. Learned counsel for the accused appellanthas drawn the attention of the Court to the deathcertificate in respect of the death of the fatherof the complainant in respect of which incidentthe offence under Section 304 IPC has beenalleged. Learned counsel has also drawn ourattention to the report of Police Station,Feelkhana, Kanpur Nagar dated 25th September, 2011submitted pursuant to the order of the Courtwherein the Investigating Officer has stated thatthe dispute between the parties appears to becivil in nature. 3
5. The deceased was 99 years old at the timeof his death and he was suffering from ChronicMalnutrition with Sev. Anaemia with SecRespiratory Infection with Gasping lav GC and diedof a sudden cardiorespiratory arrest. Taking intoaccount the totality of the facts of the case, thecircumstances in which death had occurred and alsothe report of the Police Station, Feelkhana,Kanpur Nagar dated 25th September, 2011, we are ofthe view that the prosecution in the instant caseunder Section 304 IPC in all likelihood would be alame prosecution and, therefore, in the fitness ofthings ought to be interdicted by this Court.Insofar as the offences alleged under Section 384and 420 of the IPC are concerned, we find theallegations in support to be bald, vague andlacking in precision and clarity.6. However, we cannot help observing, fromthe facts placed before us, that the accused whois the former son-in-law of the complainant has 4indulged in certain acts which may amount toharassment of the complainant and his family. Infact, there are some other criminal cases pendingbetween the parties in this regard. In the abovecircumstances, we deem it fit, while quashing theproceedings in question, to require the accusedappellant to give an undertaking before this Courtthat he will conduct himself properly insofar ascomplainant and his family are concerned and willnot cause any harassment or intimidation to them.In fact, the learned counsel for the accusedappellant has assured the Court of such conduct on
the part of the accused appellant. The aforesaidundertaking shall be filed before this Courtwithin a period of four weeks from today. We makeit clear that in the event of any breach of theundertaking it will be open for the respondent -complainant to draw the attention of this Court tosuch breach in which event orders, as may beappropriate, will be passed by the Court. We alsomake it clear that the present order will not 5affect any other case between the parties that maybe pending before the concernedauthority/competent Court. All such cases will,naturally, be decided in accordance with law.7. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. ....................,J. (RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J. (N.V. RAMANA)NEW DELHIAUGUST 05, 2015
SECTION-II IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2161 OF 2013 Rajesh Mehrotra ... Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ... Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT This is an Appeal by Special Leave Petition granted vide this Court's Order dated 17 th December, 2013. It is submitted that Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on all the three Respondents. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are represented by Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, Advocate and Respondent No.3 is represented by Ms. Anita Shenoy, Advocate. It is further submitted that Original Records from the High court as well as from the Trial Court have been received and the same are available in the Court Room for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. It is lastly submitted that Counsel for the Appellant has not filed additional documents and the matter was listed before the Court of Registrar on 9 th April, 2015 when the following order was passed : “The office report is that Ld.counsel for the parties have failed to file the additional documents within the period stipulated in the order dated 02.02.2015 of this Court. Viewed in that context, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court on its own turn.” The appeal is ready for hearing on SLP-cum-Appeal Paper books. The Appeal above-mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED this the 25th day of July, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
COPY TO: 1. Mr. Sumit Attri, Advocate 11, Supreme Court of India 2. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, Advocate 12, Old Lawyer's Chambers, S.C.I., N.D. 3. Ms. Anita Shenoy , Advocate No address C4/dk ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITEM NO.17 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Criminal Appeal No(s). 2161/2013 RAJESH MEHROTRA Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 09/04/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Ms.Ojaswini Malik,adv. Mr. Sumit Attri,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Amit Singh,adv. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay,Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The office report is that Ld.counsel for the parties have failed to file the additional documents within the period stipulated in the order dated 02.02.2015 of this Court. Viewed in that context, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court on its own turn. (M K HANJURA) Registrar SB
\220 ITEM NO.17 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Criminal Appeal No(s). 2161/2013 RAJESH MEHROTRA Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 09/04/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Ms.Ojaswini Malik,adv. Mr. Sumit Attri,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Amit Singh,adv. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay,Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The office report is that Ld.counsel for the parties have failed to file the additional documents within the period stipulated in the order dated 02.02.2015 of this Court. Viewed in that context, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court on its own turn. (M K HANJURA) Registrar SBSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySushma Kumari BajajDate: 2015.04.1111:31:49 ISTReason:
ITEM NO.19 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Criminal Appeal No(s). 2161/2013 RAJESH MEHROTRA Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 02/02/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Ms. Ojaswini Malik,Adv. Mr. Prakash Gautam,Adv. Mr. Sumit Attri,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay,Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The learned counsel for the parties seek and are given four weeks time to file the additional documents. List again on 9.4.2015. (M K HANJURA) Registrar MG
æ ITEM NO.19 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Criminal Appeal No(s). 2161/2013 RAJESH MEHROTRA Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 02/02/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Ms. Ojaswini Malik,Adv. Mr. Prakash Gautam,Adv. Mr. Sumit Attri,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay,Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The learned counsel for the parties seek and are given four weeks time to file the additional documents. List again on 9.4.2015. (M K HANJURA) Registrar MGSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMadhu GroverDate: 2015.02.0409:43:44 ISTReason:
ITEM NO.30 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Criminal Appeal No(s). 2161/2013 RAJESH MEHROTRA Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 18/11/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Sumit Attri,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Amit Singh,adv. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay,Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ld.counsel for the respondents has stated that he does not need to file the additional documents. This is taken on record. Ld.counsel for the appellant shall be at liberty to file the additional documents within a period of four weeks, in case he intends to do so. List again on 2.02.2015. (M K HANJURA) Registrar SB
˜ ITEM NO.30 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Criminal Appeal No(s). 2161/2013 RAJESH MEHROTRA Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 18/11/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Sumit Attri,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Amit Singh,adv. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay,Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ld.counsel for the respondents has stated that he does not need to file the additional documents. This is taken on record. Ld.counsel for the appellant shall be at liberty to file the additional documents within a period of four weeks, in case he intends to do so. List again on 2.02.2015.Signature Not Verified (M K HANJURA)Digitally signed by RegistrarSushma Kumari Bajaj SBDate: 2014.11.2014:45:22 ISTReason:
¼ITEM NO.12 Court No.11 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2878/2012(From the judgement and order dated 23/02/2012 in CRMWP No.2184/2012 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)RAJESH MEHROTRA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and office report ))Date: 23/04/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Abahay Singh, Adv. Mr. Yasmin Zafar, Adv. Mr. Sumit Attri,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. There shall be interim stay in the meantime. (Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) Court Master Court Master