Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Against the aforesaid backdrop, two applications came to be submitted one on behalf of the complainant under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of the above-said amount of money on supurdari and the other on behalf of DCHFC seeking the said order to be set aside and for certain clarifications. The said applications were decided by the Metropolitan Magistrate by common order dated 15.09.2014. The material part of the said order being:-

"6. The money is paid by the complainant to DCHFC as part payment of sale consideration amount pursuant to auction proceedings as per terms of auction notice. The said money is paid towards satisfaction of a civil court's award. Civil law is explicit with respect to procedure in respect of setting aside of auction proceedings. Rule 137 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 2007 prescribes detailed procedure for setting aside of auction proceedings and there is no need go in detail so far as present proceedings are concerned. It will not be out of place to mention that complainant/auction purchaser had already moved an application seeking recall of auction sale proceedings and repayment of money before the Assistant Collector, Grade-1 and by order dated 31.01.2014 the Assistant collector, Grade-1 has ordered the application to be placed before the Registrar Co- operative Society for decision as per law.
8. It is pointed out by counsel for DCHFC that IO has made attachment of Rs. 2.28 Crores but a sum of Rs. 8 lakh as stated by the prosecution is not received by them and is wrongly attached by the IO. Counsel for applicant/complainant do not dispute this fact. IO also concurs that fact. Therefore amount to the extent of Rs. 8 lakh is undisputed and its attachment/seizer to that extent is set aside.
9. So far as application of DCHFC for setting aside freezing direction by the IO is concerned, it is clarified that search and seizure of the case property is in sole domain of investigating agency pursuant to powers u/s 102 Cr.PC.. Whether the money involved is cheated money or not, cannot be decided at this stage as the investigation is still in progress and final report is still to be filed. The court cannot ignore the fact that money involved is paid by complainant/applicant to DCHFC towards the sale consideration amount in auction proceedings conducted as per law by the civil court. Money is received by DCHFC pursuant to legal process followed in execution proceedings. The amount involved is huge sum of Rs. 2.20 crores and there will be serious monetary loss of interest income to public exchequer if the money is kept idle/blocked. Therefore keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, DCHFC is directed to execute indemnity bond for a sum of Rs. 2.20 crore giving undertaking to deposit the money subject to outcome of case and directions of the court. It is clarified that DCHFC is at liberty to deal with the bank account and money as per their discretion and policy decision. The order of freezing of money issued by IO is modified to the aforesaid extent. Application of DCHFC is disposed accordingly."

(2) Officials of DCHFC participated in execution proceedings knowing fully well that only 100 flats were mortgaged with it and not the two flats in question. (3) The officials participated in execution proceedings knowing well that the said flats i.e., flat nos. A-29 and B- 22 were not in the layout plan of DDA. Those flats were not sanctioned by the DDA.

(4) DCHFC officials allowed auction proceedings to go on knowing well that the auction was to be held for sale of two illegal flats.

(5) DCHFC officials allowed petitioners to deposit the bid amount with it knowing that bid had been held for illegal flats.

(6) DCHFC officials never objected in execution and auction proceedings that flats in question cannot be sold in auction."

4. The said order has been challenged by both the parties through the petitions at hand.

5. After some hearing, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.280/2015 submitted, on instructions, that he may be permitted to withdraw the said petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner (complainant) reserving the right to take out appropriate proceedings for necessary relief before the appropriate forum under the civil jurisdiction, inter alia, to challenge the auction where under money was paid to the Bank.