IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

DWARKA COURTS, S/W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI

CRL. REVISION NO. ________ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

ATISH ……… PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH
SHO OF P.S. DABRI & ORS …….. RESPONDENTS
PS: DABRI
INDEX
S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES
1. Memo of Parties
Criminal Revision Petition U/s 397/399
2.
Cr.P.C. alongwith affidavit of petitioner
Certified copy of impugned order dated
3.
06.09.2024
List of documents along with
4.
documents
5. Vakalatnama
FILED BY:

PETITIONER
New Delhi THROUGH
Dated:

KETAN KUMAR & ASSOCIATES

(ADVOCATES)
M:8384006676 & 8285404894
Off: A-596, Gali No.17, Mahavir Enclave,
Part-2, Dabri Dwarka Road, New Delhi-110059
e-mail: [email protected]
 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
DWARKA COURTS, S/W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CRL. REVISION NO. ________ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

ATISH ……… PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH
SHO OF P.S. DABRI & ORS …….. RESPONDENTS
PS: DABRI

MEMO OF PARTIES
Sh. Atish Galhotra
S/o Sh. Satpal Galhotra
R/o RZ- 171, Indra Park, Pankha Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059
M: +91 9205581724 …… Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State through SHO P.S. Dabri, New Delhi
2. Kanchan @ Aanchal W/o Atish Galhotra
3. Shashi Grover W/o Sh. Shyam Lal Grover
4. Pardeep Grover S/o Sh. Shyam Lal Grover
5. Ishu Grover S/o Sh. Shyam Lal Grover
6. S.K. Mehta
7. Sunita Mehta W/o Sh. S.K. Mehta
8. Smt. Rano
9. Smt. Jeeti & Others …… Respondents

Respondent No. 2 to 5 R/o:

D- 331, Samta Enclave, Qutub Vihar,
Goyla Dairy, Dwarka, New Delhi-110071
Respondent No. 6 & 7 R/o:
Flat No. 200, Rajouri Apartments, Rajouri Garden,
Near Mayapuri Metro Station,
New Delhi-110027 ……. Accused

Respondent No. 8 & 9 R/o:

Not Known

PETITIONER
New Delhi THROUGH
Dated:

KETAN KUMAR & ASSOCIATES

(ADVOCATES)
M:8384006676 & 8285404894
Off: A-596, Gali No.17, Mahavir Enclave,
Part-2, Dabri Dwarka Road, New Delhi-110059
e-mail: [email protected]
 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
DWARKA COURTS, S/W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CRL. REVISION NO. ________ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

ATISH ……… PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH
SHO OF P.S. DABRI & ORS …….. RESPONDENTS
PS: DABRI

CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397/399 CRPC

AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.09.2024
PASSED BY SH. HARSHAL NEGI LD. JMFC, SOUTH-
WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI IN
COMPLAINT CASE NO. 2353/2022 UNDER SECTION
156(3) CRPC READ WITH SECTION 420/ 406/ 427/ 182/ 389/
500/ 506/ 451/ 120B/ 34 I.P.C CASE TITLED “ATISH VS.
KANCHAN AND ORS.” FOR DIRECTION TO SHO OF P.S.
DABRI TO REGISTER AN FIR AGAINST RESPONDENT
NO. 2 TO 9 & ORS.

CLAIM IN REVISION:
To accept the revision petition whereby set aside/ quash the
impugned order dated 06.09.2024 and to direct the SHO of PS
Dabri, Delhi for registration of FIR against the respondent no. 2 to
9 and others.

And/ or pass any other order which Hon’ble Court may

deem and proper in the facts and circumstances provided in the
present petition in the favour of the petitioner and against the
respondents.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. That the respondent no. 2 is the wife of the petitioner, and
respondent no. 3 to 9 are relatives of respondent no. 2.

2. That on 13.12.2020 the petitioner’s mother was contacted

by Smt. Jeeti (respondent no. 9) regarding marriage
proposal of respondent no. 2 with the petitioner. The details
of respondent no. 2 were sent by respondent no. 9 on
WhatsApp of petitioner’s mother. She then forwarded the
details to the petitioner for matching their Kundli but upon
matching their Kundli their“Goon” did not match.
Therefore, the petitioner’s parents did not proceed further
with their marriage proposal. It is pertinent to mention here
that on 13.12.2020 when the respondent no. 9 sent the
details of respondent no. 2 in which her birth timing was
mentioned as “12:15am” of 02.02.1997.

3. That on 21.09.2021 which is about ten months later, Smt.

Jeeti (respondent no. 9) again contacted petitioner’s mother
regarding marriage proposal of respondent no. 2. But this
time she had fraudulently changed her birth timing from
“12:15am” to “12:15pm”. That as a long period of about
ten months had passed between the first communication and
the second communication between the parties therefore the
petitioner and his parents failed to take notice of this fact at
that time. The petitioner’s mother again forwarded the
details to petitioner for matching their Kundli. As the birth
 timing of respondent no. 2 was fraudulently changed by the
respondent no. 9 therefore upon matching Kundli their
“Goon” matched and petitioner’s parents agreed for the
marriage proposal.

4. That the father of the respondent no. 2 has expired few years
ago. Therefore, the respondent no. 6 & 7 who are Mausa and
Mausi of respondent no. 2, were acting as guardian of the
respondent no. 2 and they insisted petitioner’s parents for
marriage to be solemnized within few days as Sh. S.K.
Mehta (respondent no. 6) represented himself to be a very
busy and influential person and stated that he cannot spend
much time on marriage ceremonies. Therefore, the marriage
date was fixed after 3 weeks i.e., 14.10.2021. That on
14.10.2021, the marriage of petitioner with respondent no.2
was solemnized as per Hindu Customs and Rites in a simple
manner. It is submitted that there is no child from the said
wedlock.

5. That after the marriage respondent no. 2 along with

petitioner and his parents started residing at the petitioner’s
previous residence bearing house no. RZ-A-22, Adarsh
Nagar, Som Bazar Road, Jeevan Park, Delhi-110059. That
since the beginning of marriage the behaviour of respondent
no. 2 was abusive and quarrelsome towards the petitioner
and his parents.

6. That on 18.12.2021 the petitioner and respondent no. 2 were

in Kashmir on their honeymoon at around 9:00-9:30 pm the
petitioner asked respondent no. 2 the reason for her abusive
 and quarrelsome behaviour, she replied with following
statement “tum na fattoo ho, tumhari gaand fat-ti hai”.

7. That the abusive and quarrelsome behaviour of respondent

no. 2 towards the petitioner and his parents did not change
and on the night of 09.01.2022 respondent no. 2 again
quarrelled with the petitioner. The next morning i.e., on
10.01.2022 after talking with her mother (respondent no. 3)
on phone she packed her clothes and jewellery and without
informing petitioner and his parents booked a cab and left
her matrimonial home. That before leaving her matrimonial
home the respondent no. 2 threatened her husband
(petitioner) with following statement “tujhe sabak
sikhaoongi jhoothe case me fasaaoongi” and left. Since
then, she is residing at her paternal home.

8. That on 10.01.2022 and 11.01.2022 petitioner and his

parents tried to contact respondent no. 2 and her family
members but neither did she nor her family members
answered the phone of petitioner and his parents. Therefore,
the petitioner and his parents gave written complaints at PS
Dabri with respect to threats passed by respondent no. 2 but
police did not act on it.

9. That when the respondent no. 2 did not return to

matrimonial home even after several days then respondent
no. 5 namely Sh. Ishu Grover (brother-in-law/ saala of
petitioner) called the petitioner and asked him to take back
respondent no. 2 to her matrimonial home. The petitioner
then told him that since the beginning of the marriage the
 behaviour of respondent no. 2 was not good towards them
and even before leaving her matrimonial home on
10.01.2022 she had passed threats of filing false and
frivolous case against them. Therefore, the petitioner told
him to meet first at some neutral location and discuss
regarding abusive and quarrelsome behaviour of respondent
no. 2 and after that he will take respondent no. 2 back to her
matrimonial home.

10. That on 30.01.2022 the petitioner and his parents and

respondent no. 2 and her other relatives meet at Royal
Dreams Banquet Hall, Dashrath Puri, New Delhi but the
respondent no. 2 and her relatives quarrelled with the
petitioner and his parents and meeting ended without any
conclusion. That few more meetings also took place but
respondent no. 2 and her relatives always quarrelled with
petitioner and his parents and the parties could not resolve
the issue. The respondent no. 6 Sh. S.K. Mehta (Mausa of
respondent no. 2) always tried to dominate the petitioner and
his parents.

11. That on 06.03.2022 the respondent no. 6 asked petitioner to

meet with him after which petitioner went to Rajouri Garden
where he was threatened by respondent no. 6 with the
following statement “tujhe pata hai ladki ne agar case kar
diya to teri zindagi barbad kar sakti hai woh”.

12. That on 08.03.2022 around 09.30 pm the respondent no. 6

called on the phone of the petitioner and again passed threats
and intimidated him by passing insulting remarks and
 threats by saying “tu chaar bando me nahi baithega na to
savere itna kanjarkhana hoga, to abhi to shuruaat hogi, aur
yeh khatm kaha hoga to soch bhi nahi payega”. The
respondent no. 6 also called the petitioner’s father and
passed threats to him after which the petitioner and his
parents got frightened and on 11.03.2022 the petitioner gave
a written complaint against respondent no. 6 at PS Dabri but
police did not act his complainant.

13. That on 13.03.2022 around 7:30-7:45 pm in furtherance to

their threats a total of 8 persons including respondent no. 2
to 8 along with son of respondent no. 8 with an intent to
cause harm and injury to the petitioner and his parents, they
secretly and unlawfully entered the building premises in
which petitioner were residing on the First Floor. The
respondent no. 6 unlawfully entered the Flat of the petitioner
with an intent to harm and injure the petitioner and his
parents but somehow petitioner’s parents managed to push
away the respondent no. 6 from their flat and closed the door
and saved themselves from getting injured by the
respondent no. 2 to 8 and others.

14. That when an occupant of the neighbouring flat namely

Smt. Binita Saini tried to intervene and asked respondent no.
6 to not use abusive and harsh language and asked him to
stop shouting then respondent no. 6 threatened her with
following remarks “tu beech me mat bol verna inse pehle
tera hisab karunga”, after which she secretly recorded the
respondent no. 2 to 8 and others shouting and passing threats
to the petitioner’s parents. The respondent no. 6 started
 banging the door of their flat and continued passing threats
to the petitioner’s parents. The petitioner’s parents told the
respondent no. 2 to 8 and others that the petitioner is not at
home but respondent no. 6 continued passing threats by
saying “tere me dam ho na utar ke dikha diyo”.

15. That after the intervention of other occupants of building the

respondent no. 2 to 8 and others were taken outside the
building but the respondent no. 2 to 8 and others continued
passing threats, false and defamatory allegations against the
petitioner and his parents.

16. That on 13.03.2022 the petitioner’s mother called the police

after which PCR arrived at the spot where the respondent
no. 2 to 8 and others were abusing and passing threats to
complainants openly and publicly. The respondent no. 2 to
8 and others and the complainants were then taken to the PS
Dabri by the police officials. But Police did not take any
action against the respondent no. 2 to 8 and others.

17. That after the incident of 13.03.2022 the threats from the
respondent no. 2 to 7 continued and on 06.07.2022 the
respondent no. 2 along with one unknown person was
spreading false rumours in the neighbourhood of the
petitioner. The petitioner again approached the PS Dabri but
police again asked him to file a written complaint.
Therefore, on 06.07.2022 the petitioner again gave a written
complaint against respondent no. 2 at PS Dabri. But police
did not act on it.
18. That on 27.07.2022 in furtherance of her threats respondent
no. 2 filed a false and frivolous complaint against the
petitioner and his parents at PS Chhawla and FIR bearing
no. 351/2022 U/S 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against
the petitioner and his parents and she has also filed an
application U/S 12 of PWDV Act which is pending before
the Ld. Court of Ms. Abhilasha Singh, Ld. JMFC (Mahila
Court), Dwarka Courts, Delhi.

19. That on 21.09.2021 the accused persons cheated and played

fraud upon the petitioner and his parents by changing the
birth timing of the accused no. 1 from “12:15 am” to “12:15
pm” when the respondent no. 9 namely Smt. Jeeti sent the
details of respondent no. 2 to WhatsApp of petitioner’.
Therefore, they have committed an offence of cheating and
criminal breach of trust with the petitioner’s family.

20. That on 10.01.2022 when respondent no. 2 was leaving her

matrimonial home, she passed threats to petitioner that she
will file a false complaint against him and in furtherance of
that on 27.07.2022 she has registered an FIR against the
petitioner and his parents based on false information
provided to the police.

21. That in furtherance of threats passed by respondent no. 6, on

13.03.2022 8 persons unlawfully entered the building of
petitioner and respondent no. 6 unlawfully entered their flat
with an intent to injure the petitioner and his parents and all
respondent no. 2 to 8 and others defamed the respect and
social devoir of the petitioner’s family publicly and openly
 with malafide intention thus committed an act of criminal
intimidation, criminal trespass and defamation.

22. That respondent no. 2 to 8 and others intentionally insulted

petitioner’s family and thereby gives provocation to the
petitioner’s family intending or knowing it to be likely that
such provocation will cause them to break the public peace
or the commit any offence.

23. That the respondent no. 2 and 6 had spread false and
baseless rumours of impotency of the petitioner among near
relative and society of the petitioner’s family. Therefore,
they have committed an act of defamation.

24. That the aforesaid incidents attract section 420/ 406/ 427/
182/ 389/ 500/ 506/ 451/ 120B/ 34 I.P.C. 1860, up to
amendments according to nature and ingredients of
offences.

25. That on 03.10.2022 petitioner sent a written complaint to

DCP, S/W District Dwarka, after few days the complainants
received call from PS Dabri, and they assured the petitioner
that they are going to act on their complaint but till date no
action is taken against the respondent no. 2 to 9 and others.

26. That the petitioner and his parents are apprehending danger
to their life and limbs as they are constantly being threatened
by respondent no. 2 to 7.
27. That the SHO of PS Dabri, Delhi has not registered an FIR
against the respondent no. 2 to 9 and others in collusion with
them, as such stern action is liable to be taken against the
SHO PS Dabri, Delhi as per law in view of observations
made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled
Ramesh Kumari Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. SCC 2006
and Lalita Kumar Vs State of U.P.

28. That the offence has been committed by the respondent no.
2 to 9 and others within the territorial jurisdiction of PS
Dabri, Delhi as such the SHO of PS Dabri, Delhi be directed
to register an FIR against the respondent no. 2 to 9 and
others and also stern action is also be liable to taken against
the SHO concerned for non-registration of FIR on the
complaint of the petitioner.

29. That the learned trial court without considering the material
available on record, vide impugned order dated 06.09.2024
passed by the court of Sh. Harshal Negi Ld. JMFC/South-
West/Dwarka Courts, Delhi in complaint case no. Ct. Cases
2353/2022 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. case titled “Atish
Vs. Kanchan and Ors” has rejected the application of the
petitioner.

30. That the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the

court of Sh. Harshal Negi Ld. JMFC/South-West/Dwarka
Courts, Delhi in complaint case no. Ct. Cases 2353/2022
under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. case titled “Atish Vs. Kanchan
and Ors” is liable to be set aside/ quash on the following
grounds: -
 GROUNDS
A. That the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the
court of Sh. Harshal Negi Ld. JMFC/South-West/Dwarka
Courts, Delhi in complaint case no. Ct. Cases 2353/2022
under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. case titled “Atish Vs. Kanchan
and Ors” is against law, in mechanical manner, without
applying its judicial mind, against the facts and natural
justice.

B. Because the learned trial court has rejected the application

under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. arbitrarily, perverse and
against the principles of natural justice.

C. Because the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that

the petitioner has disclosed the commission of cognizable
offence committed by the respondent no. 2 to 9 and others
in his complaint and learned trial court without considering
the same has dismissed the application of petitioner under
section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

D. Because the vide order dated 02.03.2024 the learned trial

court has directed the EO (enquiry officer) to file further
ATR qua the persons involved in incident dated 13.03.2022
since 8 to 10 persons came to the house of the petitioner.
However, no such enquiry was conducted by the EO
(enquiry officer) and he filed a deficit ATR before the
learned trial court.

E. Because the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought

the attention of the learned trial court about the deficit
 enquiry conducted by the EO (enquiry officer) that even till
date EO (enquiry officer) has not bring on record the address
of the respondent no. 8 and 9 and also the petitioner does
not know the name and details of one more person
accompanied by the above name respondent who is son of
respondent no. 8 but the learned trial court failed to
appreciate this fact.

F. Because the learned trial court has rejected the complaint

believing that the other matrimonial cases between the
parties and the learned trial court has failed to distinguish
between the nature of allegation in present complaint which
clearly discloses cognizable offences which are separate and
distinguish from the matrimonial dispute between the
petitioner and respondent no. 2.

G. Because the learned trial court has failed to consider that the
respondent no. 2 to 9 have committed crime under section
420/ 406/ 427/ 182/ 389/ 500/ 506/ 451/ 120B/ 34 I.P.C.
1860, up to amendments which is cognizable in nature and
the learned trial court failed to consider that the respondent
no. 2 to 7 are still passing threats to cause injury to their life
and limbs of him and his parents.

H. Because the learned trial court in the para no. 2 of the

impugned order has stated that FIR is registered against the
petitioner and it believed that the present complaint is filed
in counterblast to the matrimonial dispute between the
parties. However, the date of offence on present matter is
 13.03.2022, whereas date of registration of FIR against the
petitioner and his parents is 27.07.2022.

I. Because the police official has failed to consider and comply

with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of “Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors” 1997 CRLJ
3757” in the said case Apex Court held that whenever
magistrate has given direction to investigate the complaint
to the police, the police have to register a cognizable case
treating the same as FIR and comply with the requirements
of police rules.

J. Because the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that

in section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., the legislature in its collective
wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression
‘information’ without qualifying the same as in section
41(1) (a) or (g) of Cr.P.C. wherein the expression,
‘reasonable complaint’ and ‘credible information’ are used.
Evidently, the non-qualification of the word "information"
in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1) (a) and (g) of the
Cr.P.C. may be for the reason that the police officer should
not refuse to record an information relating to the
commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case
thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the
reasonableness or credibility of the information.

K. Because the learned trial court fell into an error in thinking

that the information received by the police could not be
treated as a first information report since the allegation was
vague in as much as to render any service to any person.
 Thus, there was no basis for a police officer to suspect the
commission of an offence which he was empowered under
section 156 of Cr.P.C. to investigate.

L. Because the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the

FIR is a pertinent document in the criminal law procedure
of our country and its main object from point of view of the
informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the
point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain
information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be
able to take suitable steps to trace and to bring truth on
record and to book the guilty.

M. Because the learned trial court wrongly came to the

conclusion that the petitioner can lead his evidence as he is
known to the respondent no. 2 to 9 and the author of his
complaint filed against them and that the assistance of
investigating authority is not required without considering
the material available on record.

N. Because the complainant does not know the address of

respondent no. 8 and 9 and without the assistance of the
investigating authority investigation cannot be completed in
present matter.

O. Because the learned trial court failed to consider the number

of judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner in
support of his case such as (1) "Ramesh Kumari Vs. State,
NCT of Delhi 2006(2) SSC 677, (2) Puran Mal Gupta &
Anr. Vs. State IV (2008) DLT (Crl) 136 Delhi, (3) Sakri
 Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (UP) & Ors (2008) SC
Cases 409, (4) Satish Kumar Goel Vs. State RC 2001 (1)
RCR (5) Mithlesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab 2003(1) CCC
451 P &H. (6) Katteri Moideen Kutty Haji Vs. State of
Kerala, 2003(2) CCC 348(AP) (7) Skipper Beverages Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. State 2001 IV AD Delhi 625, (8) Gulab Chand
Upadhyaya Vs. State of UP 2002 Crl. L.J.2907 (9) Amir
Khera Vs. Govt. of NCT 2010 171 DLT 607. The learned
trial court has also not considered the Judgment cited as
"Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr. AIR 2006 SC
705, held that the Magistrate can direct the Police to register
the FIR, there is no illegality in it, police should record FIR
even if no such direction is given by Magistrate. Police
officer should take steps contemplating in Chapter XII of
Code only thereafter.

31. That the petitioner has not filed any other revision petition
against the impugned order in any other court except the
present one.

32. That the revision petition is filed within limitation period.

PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to call for the record of the
learned trial court of Sh. Harshal Negi Ld. JMFC/South-
West/Dwarka Courts, Delhi in complaint case no. Ct. Cases
2353/2022 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. case titled “Atish Vs.
Kanchan and Ors” and further be pleased to allow the present
revision of the petition, whereby set aside/ quash the impugned
order dated 06.09.2024 and direct the SHO of PS Delhi, Delhi to
register the FIR against the respondent no. 2 to 9 and others, to
meet the ends of justice.

Any other or further order be passed as this Hon’ble court

deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case
in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

PETITIONER
New Delhi THROUGH
Dated:

KETAN KUMAR & ASSOCIATES

(ADVOCATES)
M:8384006676 & 8285404894
Off: A-596, Gali No.17, Mahavir Enclave,
Part-2, Dabri Dwarka Road, New Delhi-110059
e-mail: [email protected]
 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
DWARKA COURTS, S/W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CRL. REVISION NO. ________ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

ATISH ……… PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH
SHO OF P.S. DABRI & ORS …….. RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT
I, Atish Galhotra S/o Sh. Satpal Galhotra aged____ yrs R/o
RZ- 171, Indra Park, Pankha Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-
110059, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That the deponent is the petitioner in the above noted Criminal

Revision Petition and well conversant with facts and
circumstances of the case as such competent to swear this
affidavit.

2. That the contents of accompanying Criminal Revision Petition

under section 397/399 of Cr.P.C. have been drafted by my
counsel under my instructions and contents of the same has
been read over to me in vernacular to be true and correct.

3. That the contents of accompanying Criminal Revision Petition

under section 397/399 of Cr.P.C. may be read as part and
parcel of this affidavit and the same have not been reproduced
herein for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on ____day of_____ 2024. That the
contents of my affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
DWARKA COURTS, S/W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CRL. REVISION NO. ________ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

ATISH ……… PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH
SHO OF P.S. DABRI & ORS …….. RESPONDENTS

LIST OF DOCUMENTS
S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

KETAN
KETANKUMAR
KUMAR
(ADVOCATE)
(ADVOCATE)