Before :- Indira Banerjee and M.R. Shah, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 1600 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8723 of 2016]. D/d. 21.10.2019.
Smt. Madhu Rani - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. - Respondents
For the Appellant :- Mr. Kumar Ranjan, Mr. Aatreya Singh, Mr. Rajiv Trivedi and Mr. Gopal Jha, Advocates.
For the Respondent :- Mr. B.K. Satija, Mr. Sumit Teterwal, Mr. Hemant Arya, Mr. Chakitan V.S. Papta, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das and Mr. Rohit Minocha, Advocates.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the application being Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2015 filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code . The High Court has refused to set aside the order dated 08.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, allowing a re-visional application filed by the Respondent No. 2 and holding that the FDR deposited by the appellant in Court, pursuant to an order of Court at the time of consideration of her application for anticipatory bail, could only be withdrawn by the respondent no. 2, in whose name the FDR had been opened. The appellants had been discharged of all the offences alleged against them.
3. Respondent no.2 had filed a complaint against the appellant and others for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC . The appellant moved an application for anticipatory bail, which was allowed vide an order dated 28.12.2005 on the condition that the appellant would keep an amount of L 1,50,000/in a fixed deposit in the name of respondent no.2 – wife for a period of three years or until disposal of charge-sheet and deposit the FDR in Court. Later, by an order dated 30.8.2013, all the accused persons, including the appellant, were discharged. The order of discharge has attained finality.
4. The appellant, thereafter, moved an application for return of the FDR, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court by an order dated 13.10.2014. Respondent no. 2 – wife filed a revision application against the said order, before the learned Sessions Court. By an order dated 08.12.2014, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the said revision application on the following grounds:
i. It is an admitted position that the FDR is in the name of Respondent No.2.
ii. In the order granting anticipatory bail to the appellant, the Sessions Judge had directed that the FDR be kept in Court for a period of three years or until the disposal of the charge sheet, whichever was later.
iii. There was no direction or condition as to who could en-cash the FDR after the said period.
iv. Since FDR was in the name of Respondent no. 2, it was only she who could en-cash the FDR.
v. It does not follow from the order granting anticipatory bail that the encashment could be made by the successful party.
5. The appellant challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Court in the High Court, by filing a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC , which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order. The High Court has confirmed the order passed by the learned Sessions Court. Hence, the present appeal.
6. We have perused the orders passed by the learned Trial Court, learned Sessions Court and the High Court. The appellant deposited L 1,50,000/- pursuant to the order passed by the learned Trial Court granting anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail was granted to the appellant on the condition of the appellant keeping an amount of L 1,50,000/- in an FDR in the name of respondent No. 2 for three years or till the disposal of the charge sheet, whichever was earlier. Afterwards, the appellant and other accused persons were discharged.
7. As the amount of L 1,50,000/- was deposited by the appellant in the fixed deposit, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Court granting anticipatory bail, on condition that the same should not be en-cashed for a period of three years, or till disposal of the charge-sheet, it follows as a natural consequence that on discharge of the appellant from the offences alleged the appellant who had deposited the amount, would be entitled to get back the said amount.
8. It is true that there was no direction as to who would be entitled to en-cash the FDR after a period of three years. However, the fixed deposit was opened in the name of the respondent no. 2, as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail. The direction to keep the FDR unen-cashed for three years or till the disposal of the charge-sheet, whichever was later, makes it obvious that once the appellant was discharged, the appellant would be entitled to the amount in the fixed deposit. It was for the appellant to withdraw the amount accrued in the fixed deposit, deposited by the appellant as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail.
9. If the respondent No. 2 has any other right and/or entitlement, she has to approach the appropriate Court and obtain orders to crystalize her rights. Without any adjudication, respondent No. 2 shall not be entitled to en-cash the FDR which was deposited by the appellant as a condition for anticipatory bail. Learned Trial Court was justified in allowing the appellant to en-cash the FDR.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court as well as the learned Sessions Court are hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned Trial Court permitting the appellant to en-cash the FDR is hereby restored. The appellant shall be entitled to en-cash the FDR with accrued interest, if any. However, it is made clear that it will be open for respondent No. 2-wife to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of Stridhan etc., if permissible under the law, and such proceedings, if filed, shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
