Back
ASHA MENON
Sandeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of NCT Of Delhi And Another – Respondent
JUDGMENT
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 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 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 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 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 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 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, once granted, remains effective until the trial concludes, and a court must adhere to higher court directives regarding bail conditions and custody.
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.
Point of law: Court can postpone the issue of process
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
