Charanjeet Singh vs State & Anr.
2017 Latest Caselaw 924 Del

$~47
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY 16, 2017

+                     CRL.REV.P. 22/2017 & Crl.M.A.418/2017

        CHARANJEET SINGH                                     ..... Petitioner
                             Through :    Mr.M.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate.


                             VERSUS
        STATE & ANR.                                    ..... Respondents
                             Through :    Mr.Kamal Kr.Ghei, APP for State/R-1
                                          Mr.Ikrant Sharma with Mr.Ravi
                                          Bhargava, Advocates for R-2.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

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 420/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar. Application earlier moved under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

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 FEBRUARY 16, 2017 sa