* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: April 10, 2026 % Pronounced on: April 17, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 4599/2022, CRL.M.A. 18653/2022 NARINDER KUMAR NANGIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia and Mr. Varun Kumar, Advocates.

Versus THE STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with Ms. Vanshika Singh and Mr. Apoorva Khosla and Mr.

Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocates Mr. Rajat Aneja and Ms. N. Tiwari, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 20.08.2022 (impugned order) passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi (learned Revisional Court) which upheld the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi (learned Trial Court), wherein the application made by the respondent no.2 seeking de-freezing of account bearing no.008701014125, maintained with ICICI Bank, Branch Janak Puri was allowed.

2. Considering the time lapse in pendency of the present petition and in the peculiar facts and circumstances involved herein which require interference by this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court is proceeding to adjudicate the present petition upon merits.

3. Succinctly put, FIR No.236/2013 dated 28.11.2013 under Section(s) 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was registered by the petitioner against the respondent no.2. The said FIR was registered based on a transaction of an agricultural land (plot), whereby the petitioner had transferred the plot in favour of the respondent no.2 on 27.07.2009, whilst retaining the original title deed, as a security for a loan amount given by respondent no.2 to the petitioner. Thence, it was revealed that respondent no.2 fraudulently executed a sale transaction through a registered Sale Deed dated 25.01.2011 and sold the plot to a third party. Pursuant thereto, a part of the proceeds emanating therefrom were deposited in account of respondent no.2 bearing no.008701014125, maintained with ICICI Bank, Branch Janak Puri (Bank Account).

4. Subsequent thereto, since as per the investigation, the said sale was fraudulently executed, the investigating officer vide letter dated 27.08.2014 froze the Bank Account of respondent no.2 by virtue of the powers vested with him under Section 102(1) of the Cr.P.C. and intimated the same to the learned Trial Court under Section 102(3) of the Cr.P.C. on 23.09.2014. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.2 moved an application for de-freezing the Bank Account which was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.04.2022. As a consequence, the petitioner filed a revision petition against the said order which was upheld by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 20.08.2022. It is now that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking setting of the impugned order.

5. At the outset, Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the latest verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shento Varghese vs. Julfikar Husen: (2024) 7 SCC 23 wherein the aforesaid issue surrounding Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. has been discussed and dwelt upon in detail. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that a reasonable construction ought to be given to the term “forthwith” under Section 102(3) of the Cr.P.C. as the same is only directory and not mandatory, which implies that a mere delay thereof ought not vitiate the seizure of the property itself since the same is a irregularity.

6. Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, learned APP for State, in support thereof has relied upon the Status Report filed herein. In furtherance thereof, she submitted that as the investigation reveals