Delhi High Court
Monisha Gupta vs State & Another on 16 September, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
24 & 25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1350/2010
MONISHA GUPTA ... Petitioners
Through Mr. Vijay Aggarwal and Mr. Atul
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Meera Bhatia, ASC with Mr.
Roshan Kumar, Adv. with IO C. Singh,
PS-EOW.
Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Bina Gupta, Mr. Ankur Saigal and Mr.
Ashok K. Sharma, Advs.
+ W.P.(CRL) 1351/2010
SHEEL GUPTA ... Petitioners
Through Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Vijay Aggarwal, Atul Sharma and Mr.
Nitesh Jain, Advocates.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Meera Bhatia, ASC with Mr.
Roshan Kumar, Adv. with IO C. Singh,
PS-EOW.
Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Bina Gupta, Mr. Ankur Saigal and
Mr. Ashok K. Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 16.09.2010
1. The petitioners herein are shareholders in Sunair Hotels Ltd. FIR
No.90/2000 police station Connaught Place was registered on 14th
February, 2000 and is subject matter of charge sheet, which is pending
before the trial court. Mr. S.P. Gupta, Mr. Kaveen Gupta and Mr. Vipul
Gupta are facing prosecution in the said charge sheet under Sections
W.P.(CRL.)1350-2010 Page 1
420/406/409/468/471/477-A and 120-B Indian Penal Code.
2. Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch by their letter dated 1st
March, 2004 informed the Managing Director of Tourism Finance
Corporation of India that 2,09,91,600 shares of Sunair Hotels Ltd., which
were deposited with them as security, are a case property in the said case
and these cannot be liquidated and dealt with.
3. Now an application has been filed on behalf of the complainant M/s
VLS Finance Ltd. on whose behest FIR No.90/2000 was registered, with a
prayer that the case property and the derivative contraband are liable to
remain seized and no one can use the same except in accordance with the
direction of the court. Prayer is made that the accused should be restrained
from using the said shares or deriving any benefit or advantage thereof in
any manner. A prayer has been also made for directions to be issued under
Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Investigating Officer.
4. No order or direction has been passed on the said application and
the application is still pending consideration before the learned trial court.
In the meanwhile the accused have filed an application before the trial
court challenging the maintainability of the said application filed by the
complainant. In the order dated 3rd September, 2010, it has been observed
by the learned trial court that the question of maintainability of the
application filed by the complainant will be dealt with during the course of
arguments on the application filed by the complainant. Part arguments
have been heard and the application has not been disposed of.
5. It will be appropriate if the petitioners herein approach the trial court
raising all contentions as raised in the present petitions, including the
contention that they have right to be heard. If any such application is filed,
the same will be considered in accordance with law. It will be open to the
W.P.(CRL.)1350-2010 Page 2
respondent-complainant to raise all contentions with regard to
maintainability, locus standi and on all other aspects. Parallel proceedings
without any order by the trial court deciding any lis/dispute are not
justified and required.
The petitions are disposed of. This court has not expressed any
opinion on merits.
Dasti under signature of the Court Master.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2010
NA
W.P.(CRL.)1350-2010 Page 3
