Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 3638/2015 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: September 04, 2015
HIGH COURT OF 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
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
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
2015:DHC:7328
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
2015:DHC:7328
CRL.M.C. 3638/2015 Page 2 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 2015:DHC:7328
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 2015:DHC:7328