Anjali Gupta vs.state

Anjali Gupta vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 05, 2018

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1212512

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1212512
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Feb 05, 2018
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anjali Gupta

Respondent

State

Excerpt

.....petition and permitted de-freezing of the account of the petitioner subject to the petitioner furnishing a fixed deposit receipt in the sum of rs.2,00,000/- in the name of the trial court and on deposit of the said fixed deposit receipt, the trial court was directed to pass a formal order of de-freezing of the account.5. learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to draw the attention of the court to the allegations made in the fir and seeks to contend that the allegation that the sum of rs.2,08,000/- has been siphoned off, is not borne out. crl.m.c. 4757/2017 page 2 of 3 6. i am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact that the writ petition of the petitioner, seeking quashing on merits, already stands rejected and the petitioner is in appeal before the supreme court qua the rejection order. the application of the petitioner seeking de-freezing of the account really is in the nature of seeking an equitable relief. the revisional court, keeping in view the allegation of siphoning of the funds of the sum of rs.2,08,000/-, has passed an order to balance the equities requiring the petitioner to furnish a security in the form of a fixed deposit receipt in the sum of rs.2,00,000/-.7. i find no infirmity in the view taken by the revisional court in directing the petitioner to furnish a security in the sum of rs.2,00,000/-.8. in view of the above, i find no merit in the petition. the petition is, accordingly, dismissed. february 05, 2018 st sanjeev sachdeva, j crl.m.c. 4757/2017 page 3 of 3

Full Judgment

$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 4757/2017 Judgment delivered on:

05. 02.2018 ANJALI GUPTA versus STATE Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner

: ........ Petitioner

..... Respondent Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, APP for State. CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT0502.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) CRL.M.C. 4757/2017 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by judgment dated 23.08.2017 of the Revisional Court, whereby, the Revisional Court allowed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner and permitted de-freezing of the saving account of the petitioner, subject to the petitioner furnishing a Fixed Deposit Receipt in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of the Trial Court.

2. The Revision Petition was filed by the petitioner against order CRL.M.C. 4757/2017 Page 1 of 3 dated 12.05.2017 of the Trial Court, whereby, the Trial Court had declined to defreeze the saving account of the petitioner, who is an accused in case FIR No.61/2017 under Section 4
IPC, Police Station, Connaught Place. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has siphoned off a sum of Rs.2,08,000/-.

3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking quashing of the subject FIR. However, by judgment dated 30.03.2017 the Writ Petition (WP (Crl.) 983/2017), filed by the petitioner, was rejected. The petitioner thereafter has filed a special leave petition, which is pending before the Supreme Court.

4. On the application filed by the petitioner seeking de-freezing of the account, the Trial Court had declined to grant the permission. The Revisional Court, by the impugned order dated 23.08.2017, allowed the revision petition and permitted de-freezing of the account of the petitioner subject to the petitioner furnishing a Fixed Deposit Receipt in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of the Trial Court and on deposit of the said Fixed Deposit Receipt, the Trial Court was directed to pass a formal order of de-freezing of the account.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to draw the attention of the Court to the allegations made in the FIR and seeks to contend that the allegation that the sum of Rs.2,08,000/- has been siphoned off, is not borne out. CRL.M.C. 4757/2017 Page 2 of 3 6. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact that the Writ Petition of the petitioner, seeking quashing on merits, already stands rejected and the petitioner is in appeal before the Supreme Court qua the rejection order. The application of the petitioner seeking de-freezing of the account really is in the nature of seeking an equitable relief. The Revisional Court, keeping in view the allegation of siphoning of the funds of the sum of Rs.2,08,000/-, has passed an order to balance the equities requiring the petitioner to furnish a security in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

7. I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Revisional Court in directing the petitioner to furnish a security in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

8. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. February 05, 2018 st SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J CRL.M.C. 4757/2017 Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Anjali Gupta vs State Same Subject Education