Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Asha Menon, J.
Sandeep Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
Crl. M.C. 174 of 2021
Decided On : 18-05-2022
Review of Order - Criminal Conspiracy - IPC 380/406/420/506/120B - Sections 467/468/471 also added - Court reviewed order granting custody of moulds - Violation of principles of natural justice - Property kept in exclusive possession of Investigating Officer - No clear perversity or error disclosed - Order under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory in nature - Power to modify orders passed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is inherent - No interference by High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition against the impugned order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, seeking the release of seized moulds. The petitioner alleged criminal conspiracy by the respondent, leading to the registration of FIR under IPC Sections 380/406/420/506/120B, with additional sections added later. The petitioner's application for release of moulds was granted, but the respondent sought directions for surrendering the moulds, leading to the review of the order by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial order granting custody of the moulds to the petitioner was passed without hearing the respondent, violating principles of natural justice. The court modified the order, keeping the property in the exclusive possession of the Investigating Officer until the rights of the parties were adjudicated. The court held that there was no clear perversity or error in the decision, and no interference was warranted under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, review of order granting custody of moulds, interlocutory nature of order under Section 451 Cr.P.C., power to modify orders passed under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of granting affected parties an adequate opportunity to be heard before releasing property on superdari. It held that the power to modify orders passed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is inherent, and the purpose of the order is for safe custody of the property during the trial.
Final Decision: The petition lacked merit, and the court dismissed it, upholding the impugned order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
JUDGMENT :
Asha Menon. J.
1. The petition has been filed by the complainant in FIR No.170/2019, which was registered under Sections 380/406/420/506/120B IPC at Police Station Vasant Kunj, Delhi, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14th January, 2021 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
2. Mr. Mudit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate reviewed his earlier order dated 20th August, 2020 without any power to do so. Vide order dated 20th August, 2020, 8 moulds being seized by the police in FIR No.170/2019, were ordered to be released to the petitioner, whereas vide the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to surrender the released moulds within 7 days. Further, the Investigating Officer was directed to take possession of the same.
3. It may be mentioned here that the FIR has been registered by the petitioner as a partner of respondent No.2 submitting that they had set up a partnership firm through a registered Partnership Deed dated 10th March, 2014 for manufacturing remote controls in the name and style of M/s S.S. Manufacturing. The petitioner claims to have suddenly realized that the respondent No.2 had created a parallel company in the name of M/s Rugs Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. which was operating from M/s S.S. Manufacturing at the leased premises and the respondent No.2/accused along with a few employees planned a criminal conspiracy to misappropriate M/s S.S. Manufacturing’s finished goods, raw material and machinery hypothecated for their own wrongful gain. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 was fully aware of the hypothecation of the machinery to Andhra Bank and the loan, as also the fact that in default of repayment, the loan would be recovered from the property belonging to the petitioner’s father which had been mortgaged to Andhra Bank.
4. In the backdrop of these allegations of misappropriation, FIR No.170/2019 was registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj, Delhi against the respondent No.2 and others for having committed offences under Sections 380/406/420/506/120B IPC. Subsequently, Sections 467/468/471 IPC were also added by the Investigating Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that during investigations, the premises of M/s V.P. Automotive Components were raided and 8 moulds were seized which belonged to M/s S.S. Manufacturing. On the same day, upon a raid of the premises of M/s LIT India Pvt. Ltd., which was a company that belonged to the respondent No.2, 111 boxes of finished goods/remotes were also seized.
5. The petitioner moved an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 20th August, 2020, 8 moulds were released to him. In separate proceedings, the wife of the respondent No.2, being the Authorised Representative of M/s Rugs Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. approached the court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for release of 111 boxes of finished goods/remotes and vide order dated 17th September, 2020, these were directed to be released to her as an Authorised Representative of M/s Rugs Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
6. The respondent No.2 filed an application on 28th September, 2020 before the court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate seeking directions to the petitioner to surrender the moulds released to him earlier. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such an order could not have been passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, since it had no powers to review its order. The order had to be, therefore, set aside straightway. Reliance has been placed on Muneshwar Bux Singh Vs. State 1955 SCC OnLine All 362, Juhi Modi Vs. Neeraj Gupta & Anr. 1999 SCC OnLine Del 796, Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal & Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338, Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra 2005 SCC (Crl) 242, Smt. Anisa Begum v. Masoom Ali and Ors. 1985 SCC OnLine Del 382, M/s Shiva Leasing CO. Vs State, 1999 (79) DLT 148, Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. St
The power to modify orders passed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is inherent, and the order under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory in nature.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of principles of natural justice, the interlocutory nature of orders under Section 451 Cr.P.C., and the inherent power of the Trial Court to modify such orders.
The entitlement to seized property post-acquittal is contingent upon proven ownership title, overriding mere possession claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order passed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. is an order of interlocutory nature and does not attract the bar under Section 362 of the Cr.P....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of power of review or recall for the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under the SARFAESI Act, as determined by the Supreme Court's decision i....
The SDM cannot determine the title to the property, and the pendency of civil suits cannot be circumvented by directing the SDM to release the property to the petitioner.
The court upheld that the petitioner failed to substantiate ownership of confiscated goods, emphasizing the necessity for adequate inquiry under applicable provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedur....
Anticipatory bail granted by a higher court remains in effect until the trial concludes, and lower courts must adhere to such orders to maintain judicial discipline.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
