Skip to content


Charanjeet Singh vs.state & Anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Delhi High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Charanjeet Singh

Respondent

State & Anr.

Excerpt:


.....prosecutor. accordingly, the petitioner was directed to deposit `25 lacs in the shape of fdr within two days and remaining amount of `1.0 crore was directed to be deposited in the shape of fdr with the concerned court of police station gandhi nagar, kkd courts within seventy-five days.3. it is informed that pursuant to the said order `25 lacs have been deposited by way of fdr before the metropolitan magistrate, kkd courts. perusal of the order reveals that it was a consent order in which the petitioner himself had offered to deposit `1.25 crores to show his bona fide.4. since the impugned order was based upon petitioner’s consent, this court finds no illegality or irregularity to modify its terms and conditions.5. the revision petition lacks in merits and is dismissed. all pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (s.p.garg) judge february16 2017 sa crl.rev.p.22/2017 page 2 of 2

Judgment:


$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY16 2017 + CRL.REV.P. 22/2017 & Crl.M.A.418/2017 CHARANJEET SINGH ........ Petitioner

Through : Mr.M.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate. VERSUS STATE & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG Through : Mr.Kamal Kr.Ghei, APP for State/R-1 Mr.Ikrant Sharma with Mr.Ravi Bhargava, Advocates for R-2. S.P.GARG, J.

(ORAL) 1. Present Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of orders dated 27.10.2016 and 29.12.2016 by which he was directed to deposit `1.25 crores and his request to deposit the title documents of the property in lieu of `1 crore was declined.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Undisputedly, the petitioner is facing proceedings in case FIR No.0385/2016 under Sections 420/4
IPC registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar. Application earlier moved under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Crl.Rev.P.22/2017 Page 1 of 2 was dismissed by an order dated 07.09.2016. At the time of consideration of second anticipatory bail application, the petitioner offered to deposit `1.25 crores without prejudice to the rights and contentions to show his bona fide. This offer was accepted by the complainant as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to deposit `25 lacs in the shape of FDR within two days and remaining amount of `1.0 crore was directed to be deposited in the shape of FDR with the concerned court of Police Station Gandhi Nagar, KKD Courts within seventy-five days.

3. It is informed that pursuant to the said order `25 lacs have been deposited by way of FDR before the Metropolitan Magistrate, KKD Courts. Perusal of the order reveals that it was a consent order in which the petitioner himself had offered to deposit `1.25 crores to show his bona fide.

4. Since the impugned order was based upon petitioner’s consent, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity to modify its terms and conditions.

5. The Revision Petition lacks in merits and is dismissed. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY16 2017 sa Crl.Rev.P.22/2017 Page 2 of 2




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //