M/S Kapis Impesx Pvt. Ltd. vs Vipin Kohli & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 6631 Del

$~45

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of Decision: September 04, 2015

+                             CRL.M.C. 3638/2015
       M/S KAPIS IMPESX PVT LTD                 ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate

                     versus

       VIPIN KOHLI & ANR                                   .....Respondents
                      Through:          Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional
                                        Public Prosecutor for respondent-
                                        State
                                        Mr. Puneet Kaushik, Advocate for
                                        respondent No.1

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Petitioner claims to be the complainant of FIR No.391/2014 under Sections 420/408/120-B of IPC registered at P.S. Preet Vihar, Delhi and is aggrieved by impugned order of 16th May, 2015 vide which he has been directed to deposit a sum of `16 lacs by way of FDR. Vide aforesaid order, respondent-accused has been also directed to deposit a sum of `15 lacs by way of FDR.

Learned counsel for petitioner-complainant submits that the Sessions Court gives no reason for directing petitioner--complainant to

CRL.M.C. 3638/2015 Page 1 deposit a sum of `16 lacs by way of FDR. Even learned counsel for respondent-accused submits that respondent-accused has no means to deposit a sum of `16 lacs by way of FDR.

Learned counsel for petitioner-complainant submits that the impugned order does not give any valid justification as to why petitioner- complainant should deposit the amount of `16 lacs allegedly admitted received by him because he has yet to receive the remaining amount of `15 lacs from the respondent-accused. This is disputed by learned counsel for respondent-accused, who submits that he is not liable to pay any such amount.

Be that as it may. Since petitioner-complainant has come to this Court against the impugned order, therefore, the condition imposed in the impugned order directing petitioner-complainant to deposit `16 lacs by way of FDR is hereby quashed as it is not supported by any valid reason/justification.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

                                                      (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                         JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 04, 2015
s




CRL.M.C. 3638/2015                                                 Page 2