Delhi High Court
Anjali Gupta vs State on 5 February, 2018
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 05.02.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 4757/2017
ANJALI GUPTA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, APP
for State.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
05.02.2018
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
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 420/34 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.
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.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
February 05, 2018
st
