RAM PARSHAD Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION
LAWS(DLH)-1985-2-41
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 22,1985

RAM PARSHAD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

H.L. Anand, J. - (1.)This petition, Cr. M(M) 413/83, and two connected petitions, Cr. M(M) 414/83 and Cr. M(M) 539/83, by one Ram Parshad, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arising out of three different complaints, filed against the petitioier, one by one Hamid, Cr. M (M) 414/83, and the other two Cr. M(M) 413/83 and Cr. M(M) 539/83, by one Prilarn Lal, have really become infructuous in that after protracted hearings of these petitions and scrutiny by me of records of at least 8 other complaints filed by Pritam Lal and Hamid, aforesaid, and certain others, and at the fagend of the hearings. Counsel, who appeared for these two persons, volunteered to withdraw these complaints, as indeed, a criminal revision pending in the Sessions Court against an order by which another complaint of Pritam Lal was dismissed. During the hearing of these petitions and the scrutiny by me of the various complaints a situation was exposed which may perhaps, on further enquiry, turn out to be an organised racket involving an Advocate, two-three professional touts or litigants, and probably some court officials and even a presiding officer or two. It is for this reason that I thought it proper to dispose of these petitions by a detailed order setting out the disclosures made in the course of proceedings and the circumstances which appeared to me to be deserving of a further probe, both by this Court in relation to the conduct of the court officials and/or the judicial officers, as also by the Bar Council of Delhi, in relation to the Advocate concerned, to determine the extent of their complicity in the racket.
(2.)Ram Parshad, petitioner in these three petitions is the landlord of a premises on New Rohtak Road. One Onkar Nath Sharma occupies first floor of the, premises as a tenant. The tenant has apparently sublet a part of the premises to Surinder Kumar Sharma and Daksh Kumar Sharma, who are the sons of his sister. Ram Parshad has filed proceedings for their eviction from the premises which are presumably still pending.
(3.)According to Ram Parshad, Surinder Kumar Sharma and Daksh Kumar Sharma are closely related to S.P. Sharma, Advocate, and according to the petitioner, these two brothers have involved the petitioner and his son in a number of false criminal cases filed through the aforesaid Advocate by putting up Pritam Lal and Hamid, aforesaid, who are said to be the Advocate's touts, as complainants. Hamid is a rickshaw puller and Pritam Lal describes himself as a social worker.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.