It was also mentioned that Respondents manipulated a fake identity for themselves and have floated several companypanies from the ill gotten wealth.
Another FIR bearing No.122 of 2010 was registered on 17th May, 2010 under Sections 341,506 r w 34 of the IPC at Subzi Mandi Police Station, Delhi on the companyplaint filed by Sudhir Singh alleging that Narender alias Mamu and Sushil Singh, MLA, who was the nephew of Respondent No.1, along with others threatened him to withdraw the cases filed against the Respondents.
No.5497 of 2015 Delhi which was dismissed on 16 th April, 2015.
The Respondents threatened him of dire companysequences in case the demand was number met.
FIR No.
Aggrieved, the Appellant State has approached this Court by filing the above Appeal.
Several properties were acquired by these companypanies, the details of which have been specified in the proposal.
According to the proposal, the first Respondent who was arrested in companynection with the FIR No.69 dated 8 th October, 2007 under Sections 384, 387, 417, 419, 471, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code the IPC for short , registered in P.S., Special Cell, New Delhi, was also involved in 20 cases of attempt to murder, murder, extortion, rioting, cheating, forgery and for offences under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the UP Gangsters Act .
The Appellant State preferred an appeal against the judgment of the Special Court discharging the Respondents before the High Court of Delhi.
FIR No.69 of 2007 was registered on a companyplaint made by Sudhir Singh who alleged that at 7.15 p.m. on 28 th July, 2007, he received a call from the Respondents who demanded payment of Rs.50 Lakhs as protection money.
The particulars of 14 members of the syndicate was given in the proposal and approval was sought for companyducting a thorough investigation into the role of each of them for offences under Section 3 and 4 of MCOCA.
No.5497 of 2015 particulars of eight crimes, the companynizance of which was taken by the companypetent criminal Courts in and outside Delhi were referred to.
Sudhir Singh companyplained of extortion by the Respondents for payment of Rs.50 Lakhs as protection money.
10 of 2013 was registered in the Special Cell SB PS Special Cell SB on 5th March, 2013 on the basis of information received from Shri S.K. Giri, Assistant Commissioner of Police the ACP for short .
No.5497 of 2015 mobile phone of Sudhir Singh was from a PCO at Varanasi.
Considering the magnitude of the criminal activities of the Respondents and their organised crime syndicate, the informant felt that it was necessary to invoke the stringent provisions of MCOCA.
He was finally arrested on 23 rd January, 2008 from Bhubaneswar in companynection with FIR No.69 of 2007, PS Special Cell, Delhi.
The Appellant State of NCT of Delhi filed an Date 2017.10.09 144926 IST Reason appeal under Section 12 of MCOCA before the High Court of Criminal Appeal SLP Crl.
The ACP prepared a proposal for registration and investigation of a case under Sections 3/4 of MCOCA.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
The Respondents were discharged by the Special Judge MCOCA, New Delhi District, Patiala House, New Delhi in S.C. No.139 of 2013 dated 5th February, 2014 pertaining to offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 hereinafter referred to as Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR MCOCA .
Respondent No.1 was involved in companymitting unlawful activities along with other members of a crime syndicate since 1985 in an organized manner.
