Delhi District Court
Ram Prasad vs The State on 16 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) (CBI)SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision Number : 31/2015
Unique ID No. 2406R0165442015
Ram Prasad
S/o Late Sh Chotte Lal
Address A-2/102 Phase-V
Aya Nagar, New Delhi-47
........................Revisionist
versus
1. The State
Govt. of NCT, Delhi
2. Rukmani Devi
R/o H. No. 199, D Block
Gali No.7, Aya Nagar,
New Delhi-110047
..........................Respondents
Date of institution of Revision : 21/05/2015
Date of Allocation : 22/05/2015
Date of conclusion of arguments : 03/09/2015
Date of Judgment : 16/09/2015
Particulars related to impugned order
FIR No. : 174/15
PS : Fatehpur. Beri
U/s : 365/323/342/506/34 of IPC
Date of impugned order : 13/05/2015
Name of learned Trial Court : Ms Ankita Lal
Ld MM- Mahila Court,
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
Ram Prasad Vs State C.R. No. 31/15 1 of 5
Memo of Appearance
Sh Sanjay Trakroo, Ld Counsel for Revisionist.
Sh Praveen Rahul, Ld APP for State/respondent no.1
Ms Indu Ranjan, Ld Counsel for respondent No.2.
JUDGMENT
1. The present is a judicial verdict on a revision petition filed by the revisionist, Ram Prasad, against the order, dated 13/05/2015, passed by the Ld Trial Court.
2. Present revision has been filed by the revisionist, namely, Ram Prasad, u/s 397/401 Cr.PC against the order, dated 13/05/2015, wherein Ld Trial Court had given 10 days' time for disposing of the property, in case FIR no. 174/15.
3. Aggrieved from the said order revisionist, Ram Prasad, has preferred this revision. It is contended by Ld counsel for revisionist that the impugned order, dated 13/05/2015, is perverse and against the law, the facts of the case and is liable to be set aside as Ld Trial Court had imposed a condition, when the petitioner moved a second bail application, while granting interim bail to the revisionist/petitioner that the petitioner should dispose of the property. It has further been contended by Ld counsel for revisionist that the impugned order dated 13/05/2015 is devoid of merits and reasoning are based on emotional consideration and is contrary to the hard facts placed by the petitioner and as such is liable to be set aside. It has further been contended that the house is situated in an unauthorized area and it is difficult to sell and to find a reasonable buyer when the property becomes disputed. It has further been contended that the impugned order is Ram Prasad Vs State C.R. No. 31/15 2 of 5 arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises and Ld Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that there are other legal heirs and there is slowdown in the market, in view of the present scenario. and the property of the value is very down. It has further been contended that the Ld Trial Court had passed the impugned order in great haste and had ignored the facts on record and the fact that matter is of civil in nature.
4 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above contentions and have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld Counsel for the revisionist, Ld counsel for the respondent no.2 and Ld APP for State and have gone carefully through the Trial Court record.
5. ld Trial Court had given 10 days time to the revisionist, Ram Prasad, to dispose of the property, from the date of said order i.e. 13/05/2015.
6. The relevant part of said order is reproduced herein below for ready reference.
"However, in the interest of justice, he is given one last and final opportunity to comply with his undertaking for disposing the alleged property within 10 days from today. Interim bail of accused Ram Prasad is extended till next date of hearing."
7. It is clear from the above quote i.e. order of Ld Trial Court that revisionist had sought the interim bail from Ld Trial Court after giving the undertaking to the fact that he shall dispose of the alleged property. Ld Trial Court had given the last and final opportunity to the revisionist, namely, Ram Prasad, to comply with his undertaking for disposing of the alleged property within 10 days from the said order.
Ram Prasad Vs State C.R. No. 31/15 3 of 58. Revisionist is on interim bail vide order dated 13/04/2015, and in the said order Ld Trial Court had specifically mentioned that "in view of the submissions made by counsel for the accused that the accused is ready to amicably settle the matter and is ready to take steps to dispose of the property which is in dispute between the parties i.e. H. No. A-2/102, Phase- V, Aaya Nagar, New Delhi and grant 60 percent of the share in the sale consideration to the victim, I deem it fit to release the accused Ram Prasad on an interim bail for one month"
9. As per the certified copy of the statement, filed in revision petition, revisionist Ram Prasad had given the statement before the Court in CC no. 83/1/13 to the effect that "I am the respondent no.1 in the present case. I am son of the aggrieved person. House No. A2/102, phase V, Aaya Nagar, New Delhi belongs to my deceased father. I undertake not to create any kind of third party interest in any form including selling, giving on rent etc, in the aforesaid house till the next date of hearing."
10. Revisionist had filed this revision petition against the order, dated 13/05/2015, wherein Ld Trial Court had directed him to dispose of the said property within 10 days from the date of order. It may be mentioned here that the order regarding the disposition of the property No. A-2/102, Phase-V, Aaya Nagar, New Delhi, is of civil nature and the said property might have other legal heirs. So far as, the directions regarding disposition of the said property are concerned, Ld MM could not have given those directions and in fact the conflicting interest of the parties could have been decided by the civil suit filed between the parties, hence I am of the considered view that so far as the directions regarding the disposing of the said property are concerned, the same are against the well settled principle of law. No such directions could Ram Prasad Vs State C.R. No. 31/15 4 of 5 have been given by Ld Trial Court.
11. In view of these observations, order, dated 13/05/2015, of Ld Trial Court, is modified to the extent as mentioned above and the directions regarding disposing of the property, shall remain ineffective and inoperative.
12. Revision petition, is accordingly, partially allowed and order of Ld Trial Court, is modified to the extent as mentioned above.
13. A copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court along with the trial court record.
14. File related to revision petition, be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Ramesh Kumar)
On this 16th of September, 2015 ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)
South Distt: Saket Courts: New Delhi
Ram Prasad Vs State C.R. No. 31/15 5 of 5