Delhi District Court
State vs Nitin Jain on 18 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 699/2025
PS- EOW
FIR no. 54/2025
U/Sec. 440 BNSS
In the matter of :-
State (Through Public Prosecutor)
......Revisionist
Versus
1. Nitin Jain
S/o Narender Kumar Jain
R/o Flat no. 50, second floor,
Sector 9, Rohini Delhi - 110085.
......Respondent
Date of Institution : 05.12.2025
Date of Arguments : 18.03.2026
Date of Order : 18.03.2026
Decision : Allowed.
Order of Ld. Trial Court
Stands set aside.
ORDER
1. Revisionist/State has filed present revision petition thereby challenging order dated 16.10.2025 passed by Ld. Trial Court/CJM, South East District, Saket Court in case FIR no. 54/2021 PS EOW (SED) titled as "State vs. Nitin Jain and Ors" vide which Ld. Trial Court had allowed the application moved on behalf of the respondent/ accused Nitin Jain for release of articles on Superdari.
CR No. 699/2025v PS EOW State vs. Nitin Jain FIR no. 54/2021 Page No.1 of 11
2. Revisionist herein is the State through Ld. Public Prosecutor and respondent Nitin Jain herein is of the accused before Ld. Trial Court. In my subsequent paragraphs, parties will be referred with the same nomenclature with which they were referred before Ld. Trial Court, in order to avoid confusion.
3. Trial Court record reveal that in the present matter the FIR was registered on the complaint of complainants namely Sh. P. L. Kapoor and Sh. Girish Kapoor, upon which the FIR was registered on 24.03.2021. Subsequently, after investigation chargesheet was filed on 15.12.2022 against accused persons namely Nitin Jain, Tanvi Jain, Narender Kumar Jain. An application was moved on behalf of accused/ respondent Nitin Jain for seeking release of articles on superdari. Upon the aforesaid application the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 was passed by which the application moved on behalf of accused / respondent was allowed.
4. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the State on the following grounds:
A. That the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the order of release of case property by stating that IO has no objection if the case property be released on superdari to its rightful owner. But in the reply, 10 has stated that the articles which were recovered from the accused from his personal search may be released to him. IO has not stated CR No. 699/2025v PS EOW State vs. Nitin Jain FIR no. 54/2021 Page No.2 of 11 anywhere that he has no objection if the case property be released to the accused person.
B. That the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has erred in law and facts in ordering release of the seized property on superdari without considering the clear admissions and evidentiary material on record. The accused himself, in his voluntary statement, has admitted that both vehicles and the cash recovered were acquired using the cheated money received from the complainant Late Shri P.L. Kapoor.
C. That the impugned order fails to appreciate that the seized vehicles and cash are vital material evidence in the case and are directly connected with the offence. Their recovery was made at the instance of the accused during investigation, duly seized under proper memo, and form part of the charge sheet relied upon by the prosecution.
D. That the Learned Court overlooked the fact that the property was recovered during investigation from the possession of the accused and the same is required to be preserved in its present form for proper identification, proof, and linking during trial. Releasing it to the accused at this stage would seriously prejudice the prosecution and weaken the evidentiary chain.
E. That during interrogation, the accused Nitin Jain gave a detailed confession admitting that he had cheated the complainant of large sums CR No. 699/2025v PS EOW State vs. Nitin Jain FIR no. 54/2021 Page No.3 of 11 of money through false promises, forged letters, fabricated cheques, and forged documents of various government agencies and private developers. The recovery of vehicles, cash, stamps, and forged documents is a direct outcome of those admissions and, therefore, indispensable to the prosecution.
F. That the order has been passed mechanically without reference to the nature of property, its connection with the offence, or its evidentiary value.
G. That the order of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate suffers from non-application of mind, is contrary to the material on record, and warrants interference by this Hon'ble Revisional Court in the interest of justice.
H. That the impugned order is based on conjunctures and surmises, hence bad in the settled preposition of law.
I. That present revision has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
J. That the petitioner has not filed any other revision before any court except the present revision petition for same or similar relief/relieves.
K. That serious miscarriage of justice will be occasioned in the present case if the present revision petition is not allowed.
CR No. 699/2025v PS EOW State vs. Nitin Jain FIR no. 54/2021 Page No.4 of 11 L. That Ld.Court has jurisdiction to hear the present revision petition.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE.
5. It has been argued on behalf of state that accused No. 1, Nitin Jain, was the Proprietor of Coldinsth Associates, in conspiracy with his wife accused No. 2, Tanvi Jain, and his father accused No. 3, Narender Kumar Jain, dishonestly induced the complainant Late Shri P. L. Kapoor, to invest large sums of money on the false pretext of property transactions in projects of M/s Raheja Developers Ltd. It is alleged that accused Nitin Jain, claiming himself to be an authorised representative of Raheja Developers Ltd., collected payments exceeding 78.20 crores from the complainant and his family members between 2016 and 2019. To gain their confidence, he and his co-accused issued several cheques amounting to crores of rupees, all of which were subsequently dishonoured, and also delivered forged and fabricated letters purportedly issued by various authorities such as RERA, RBl, and During investigation, it was revealed that the accused had used forged letterheads, seals, and signatures of public officers and private entities, including those of Raheja Developers Ltd., HARERA Gurugram, Smartworld, M3M, and others, to misrepresent authenticity of documents. The complainant's wife and daughter, in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., confirmed that they had witnessed accused CR No. 699/2025v PS EOW State vs. Nitin Jain FIR no. 54/2021 Page No.5 of 11 Nitin Jain handing over cheques and forge letters to the complainant. Statements of company officials and government authorities have further confirmed that no such letters or authorisations were ever issued and that the same were forged and fabricated. The investigation also established that vehicles and cash recovered at the instance of accused Nitin Jain were acquired during the period of cheating. On completion of investigation, sufficient evidence came on record to charge accused Nitin Jain under Sections 406, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC, and accused Tanvi Jain and Narender Kumar Jain under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The charge-sheet was filed before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South-East District, Saket, New Delhi. The present matter is at the stage of argument on charge and at this stage accused Nitin Jain filed an application to release vehicles bearing No. DL10CN 1403 and DL12 CK 5503 respectively along with mobile phone-
"APPLE 13 PRO MAX and SAMSUNG FOLD" and cash of Rs. 9.5 lakhs on supradari. The present application has been allowed by the court without going through the contents of the chargesheet and other material available on record and even without giving an opportunity to the complainant/victim. Further, that the aforesaid articles are the case property in the present matter which were procured by the accused from the cheated amount and could not have been released to the accused by way of superdari and only his personal search articles could have been released and therefore, the impugned order qua release of cash amount of Rs. 9.5 Lakhs and aforesaid 3 vehicles is liable to be set aside.
CR No. 699/2025v PS EOW State vs. Nitin Jain FIR no. 54/2021 Page No.6 of 11 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED/ RESPONDENT
6. It is argued on behalf of accused / respondent that the present revision petition filed by the State is misconceived, baseless and liable to be dismissed at the threshold as the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate is well-reasoned and passed strictly in accordance with law. That the Ld. Trial Court after considering the material on record and the submission of the Investigating Officer rightly allowed the application for release of property on superdari, subject to appropriate conditions and bonds. That on 16.10.2025, when the application for release of the case property was listed for hearing before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Investigating Officer (I/O) was not physically present before the Hon'ble Court. That despite the absence of the Investigating Officer, the Hon'ble Court, after considering the material available on record, was pleased to allow the application and passed an order directing release of the seized articles to the applicant/accused on superdari, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court. That even after the passing of the said order, the Investigating Officer intentionally delayed and avoided the release of the articles, despite the clear and specific directions issued by the Hon'ble Court. That the applicant/accused has always been ready and willing to comply with the conditions imposed by the Hon'ble Court, however the release of the articles has been unnecessarily delayed due to the conduct of the Investigating Officer, thereby causing CR No. 699/2025v PS EOW State vs. Nitin Jain FIR no. 54/2021 Page No.7 of 11 hardship and prejudice to the applicant/accused. That it is argued on behalf of respondent that the Investigating Officer failed to comply with the said order dated 16.10.2025, and the articles were not released to the applicant/accused despite the clear directions of the Hon ble Court. That due to the non-compliance of the order, the applicant/accused was constrained to file an application on 31.10.2025 seeking directions for compliance of the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Court. That thereafter, after a delay of about 20-25 days from the date of the court order, the Investigating Officer finally released the said articles to the applicant/accused, which clearly reflects the unnecessary delay and noncompliance of the judicial order.
7. It has further been argued that the present revision petition has been filed only to delay the proceedings and to harass the respondent for further investigation. That the impugned order is purely interlocutory in nature, passed under settled principles governing release of case property on superdari, and therefore interference by the revisional court is not warranted. That it is a settled law that seized articles such as vehicles, mobile phones and other personal property should not be kept in police custody for long periods as it leads to deterioration and loss of value. That the Ld. Trial Court rightly considered that the Investigating Officer had no objection to release of the articles to the rightful owner, and therefore allowed the application subject to furnishing of superdari bond and indemnity bond and therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
CR No. 699/2025v PS EOW State vs. Nitin Jain FIR no. 54/2021 Page No.8 of 11
8. I have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for complainant/ revisionist and Ld. Counsel for respondent and also carefully perused the record.
9. Impugned order was passed by Ld. Trial Court on 16.10.2025. Present revision petition was filed by complainant on 05.12.2025 which means it was filed within limitation period. The impugned order was not an interlocutory order. That order decided the legal rights of the parties and therefore, present revision petition is maintainable before this court.
10. In the present matter the case of the prosecution before the Ld. Trial Court is that the respondent / accused allured by making false representations for the complainant to make investment in a project, for which he had no authority and made forged and fabricated documents. Subsequently, the FIR was registered on 24.03.2021. During investigation the genuineness of the documents of RBI given by accused/ respondent to the complainant were confirmed and it was found that the said documents were not issued by RBI. Further, that the alleged documents of HARERA again given by accused to the complainant were also forged and fabricated. Further, on scrutiny of the accounts of accused Nitin Jain it was revealed that the amount was received by him from the complainant for a total of Rs. 8,57,07,476/-. Further, during the course of investigation accused Nitin Jain disclosed that car bearing no. DL10CN1403 (MG Hector) having Chasis no.
CR No. 699/2025v PS EOW State vs. Nitin Jain FIR no. 54/2021 Page No.9 of 11 005929 was purchased by him from cheated money received from complainant in 2019. further, during search and seizure of the aforesaid car a bag containing amount of Rs. 9.5 Lakhs was recovered, which the accused/ respondent disclosed was taken by him from the complainant was a cheated amount. Further, during investigation a car Hyundai Creta bearing registration no. DL12CK5503, white colour having chassis no. GM144 was recovered at the instance of accused Nitin Jain from his house which was also purchased from cheated amount in the year 2016. Further, the reply filed by the IO before the Ld. Trial Court in respect to application for release of superdari, it has been mentioned that the aforesaid vehicles were purchased by accused respondent from cheated amount and the cheated amount was seized at instance of accused Nitin Jain and being the accused in the present matter is not the rightful owner of the aforesaid case property.
11. Further, the Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 without giving an opportunity to complainant or LRs of complainant. The aforesaid fact regarding the articles being case property, could not have been released to the respondent as he is not the rightful owner in the present matter. Therefore, in my considered view, the Ld. Trial Court erred in releasing the aforesaid two cars i.e. bearing no. DL10CN1403 (MG Hector) having Chasis no. 005929 and a car Hyundai Creta bearing registration no. DL12CK5503, white colour having chassis no. GM144 and amount of Rs. 9.5 Lakhs, which could not have been released to the accused/ respondent and therefore, the CR No. 699/2025v PS EOW State vs. Nitin Jain FIR no. 54/2021 Page No.10 of 11 aforesaid impugned order dated 16.10.2025 is set aside qua the aforesaid articles released to the accused/ respondent on superdari.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is hereby directed to accused/ respondent Nitin Jain to handover the aforesaid articles to the IO within three days from today and IO shall file report regarding the same to the concerned court/ trial Court before 25.03.2026.
13. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court with copy of the present order for information and compliance.
14. Revision petition stands allowed.
15. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Order Dasti. Digitally signed
by Sheetal
Sheetal chaudhary
chaudhary Date:
2026.03.18
15:55:59 +0530
[Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan]
ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi
18.03.2026 (m)
CR No. 699/2025v PS EOW State vs. Nitin Jain FIR no. 54/2021 Page No.11 of 11