Delhi District Court
Smt. Narender Kaur vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 14 March, 2017
Criminal Revision No.167/2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. : 167/2016
Under Section : 380/448 IPC
Police Station : Geeta Colony
FIR No. : 413/15
CNR No. : DLET01-002259-2016
In the matter of :-
Smt. NARENDER KAUR
D/o. Late Kahan Singh,
R/o. H.No.764, Ground Floor,
Jheel Khurenja, Delhi. ............REVISIONIST
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ............RESPONDENT
Date of Institution : 16.02.2016
Date of Receiving : 17.02.2016
Date of reserving judgment : 14.03.2017
Date of pronouncement : 14.03.2017
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.11.2015, passed by trial court in a case titled as State v. Kanchan, bearing FIR No.413/15, under Section 380/448 IPC, PS Geeta Colony. Vide impugned order, the trial court dismissed the application seeking release of keys of house no.764, Ground Floor, Jheel Khurenja, Delhi on superdari to the applicant/petitioner herein. BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE :-
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that an FIR was lodged for offence under Section 380/448 IPC against accused Kanchan. Accused Kanchan was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.07.2015 passed by Sessions Court and in the same order direction was given to take keys of the Page 1 of 3 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.167/2016 property no. 764, Ground Floor, Jheel Khurenja, Delhi. The keys of this premise was directed to be handed over to IO by the accused, which was to be treated as part of chargesheet. The court further observed that ld. MM could pass direction after final judgment, for handing over the keys in accordance with law.
3. Thereafter, petitioner herein moved an application before ld. MM for release of the keys. The number of premise was mentioned as house no.764. She claimed herself to be owner of this property and sought release of the keys on this ground. Vide impugned order, ld. MM dismissed the application stating that the keys could not be handed over to the petitioner at that stage.
GROUNDS : -
4. Being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 18.11.2015, petitioner preferred this revision petition on the following grounds :-
● That the trial court did not appreciate that the applicant did not intend to impede any process of the investigation and was willing to co-operate in all acts, wherein IO might require her co-operation and therefore, applicant was willing to seek the release of the keys, only as interim measures.
● That the trial court did not appreciate that it was known fact that in case the key was permitted to be remained in the physical custody of the IO, throughout its investigation, the applicant had been deprived from the enjoyment of the above mentioned property and the applicant suffer financial loss. However, if the key was permitted to be released to the petitioner, during the pendency of the investigation, the bonafide right of the petitioner to enjoy her property would not have been prejudiced.
ARGUMENTS :-
5. During course of these proceedings, it was reported that petitioner had died. However, ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that since Page 2 of 3 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.167/2016 legality of impugned order is to be decided in the revision, therefore, this court could proceed further to do the same.
6. No one appeared for petitioner to make any argument and petition is being decided on the basis of averments made therein as well as record of the application and impugned order. APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS, FINDINGS & DECISION :-
7. The order dated 16.07.2015 vide which Sessions Court had given direction to the accused to hand over the keys of this property to the IO, shows that the keys were with the accused Kanchan, thereby showing that she had been in possession of this property. Complainant had made allegations of house trespass as well as theft against the accused. There is no reference to the petitioner herein in that order. Thus, apparently when ld. MM shall decide this case, the order has to be passed by ld. MM in accordance with Section 456 Cr.P.C. If ld. MM finds the accused to be guilty, then an order of restoration of the property is to be passed. In any other situation, ld. MM may still pass any order as per the evidence appearing on the record, relating to possession of this property. Handing over possession of this property on the basis of title was not contemplated in the aforesaid order passed by ld. Sessions Judge. Therefore, at the stage when even the chargesheet was not filed before the court, ld. MM was right in declining such prayer of the petitioner herein. Hence, I do not find any legal infirmity in such order. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
8. Record of impugned order with application and copy of this order be sent back to the trial court. File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 14.03.2017 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East (This order contains 3 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page 3 of 3 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi