REVIEW PETITION 3022/2009 on 15 December 2009

$~29

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ CRL.M.C. 3022/2009 & CM APPLN. 13644/2017

RAMAN KUMAR JUNEJA

..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Aditya Kumar Choudhary and Mr.Kushagra Sinha, Advocates.

Versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State.

Mr. Vinod Tyagi, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

O R D E R26.09.2017

This is an application under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking release of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lac only) deposited by the applicant pursuant to the order dated 15.12.2009 in Crl. M. C. 3022/2009.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant deposited Rs.50,00,000/- pursuant to the directions of this Court in the proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 9/2009 and since the said FIR stand quashed, the said amount be released to the applicant.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the present application is not maintainable as withdrawal of amount by the petitioner is governed by various orders passed by this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court which fact has been deliberately concealed from this Court.

CRL. M.C. 3022/2009

The attention of this Court has been drawn to the various orders passed by this Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are as follows:

i.Vide order dated 15.07.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CS (OS) No. 2205 of 2009 titled as „Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. Raman Kumar Juneja‟,it was ordered that “the amount of Rs. 50 lacs deposited by the defendant in the course of the criminal proceedings in this court shall continue to remain in deposit and the fixed deposit shall be kept renewed from time to time till further orders in theseproceedings”; this Court in CS (OS) No. 2205 of 2009 titled as „Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. Raman Kumar Juneja‟,it was ordered that “the amount of Rs. 50 lacs deposited by the defendant in the course of the criminal proceedings in this court shall continue to remain in deposit and the fixed deposit shall be kept renewed from time to time till further orders in theseproceedings”;

ii.Vide order dated 23.08.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in FAO (OS) No. 377 of 2013 titled as ‘Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. Raman Kumar Juneja’ directed that “The respondents are hereby injuncted from disposing off the property No. 20/2, Civil Lines, Rajpur Road, Delhi-54, admieasuring 442 Sq. Yards, which was subject matter of the previous injunction granted by the Court in the Suit on 20.11.2009, till the disposal of the present appeal. this Court in FAO (OS) No. 377 of 2013 titled as ‘Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. Raman Kumar Juneja’ directed that “The respondents are hereby injuncted from disposing off the property No. 20/2, Civil Lines, Rajpur Road, Delhi-54, admieasuring 442 Sq. Yards, which was subject matter of the previous injunction granted by the Court in the Suit on 20.11.2009, till the disposal of the present appeal.

iii.The petitioner against the aforesaid order preferred an SLP (Civil) No. 28829/2013 titled as „Raman Kumar Juneja Vs. Pramod Kumar Jain‟ and vide order dated 23.09.2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court pleased to dismiss the said SLP;(Civil) No. 28829/2013 titled as „Raman Kumar Juneja Vs. Pramod Kumar Jain‟ and vide order dated 23.09.2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court pleased to dismiss the said SLP;

iv.Vide order dated 13.11.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in FAO (OS) No. 377 of 2013 titled as „PramodKumar Jain Vs. Raman Kumar Juneja‟, it was directed this Court in FAO (OS) No. 377 of 2013 titled as „PramodKumar Jain Vs. Raman Kumar Juneja‟, it was directed that “the learned Single Judge has already directed that thesum of Rs. 50 lakhs which had been deposited in criminal proceedings, which have been referred to in the impugned order, shall continue to remain deposited and shall be subject to orders that may be passed in thesuit”;

v.The petitioner filed Review Petition No. 15 of 2014 in FAO (OS) No. 377 of 2013 titled as „Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. Raman Kumar Juneja‟ and the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court and the aforesaid order remained affirmed; (OS) No. 377 of 2013 titled as „Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. Raman Kumar Juneja‟ and the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court and the aforesaid order remained affirmed;

vi.The petitioner again preferred an SLP (Civil) No. 1855 of 2014 titled as ‘Raman Kumar Juneja – versus –Pramod Kumar Jain’filed against above Order aforesaid order dated 13.11.2013, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 07.02.2014; titled as ‘Raman Kumar Juneja – versus –Pramod Kumar Jain’filed against above Order aforesaid order dated 13.11.2013, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 07.02.2014;

vii.The petitioner also filed a SLP (Civil) No. 1856 of 2014 titled as „Raman Kumar Juneja Vs. Pramod Kumar Jain‟ filed against above Order dated 10.01.2014 which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 07.02.2014, thereby confirming/affirming the aforesaid order 13.11.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. „Raman Kumar Juneja Vs. Pramod Kumar Jain‟ filed against above Order dated 10.01.2014 which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 07.02.2014, thereby confirming/affirming the aforesaid order 13.11.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

viii.Vide order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in in FAO (OS) No. 377 of 2013 titled as „Pramod Kumar Court in in FAO (OS) No. 377 of 2013 titled as „Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. Raman Kumar Juneja‟, affirmed its above order dated 13.11.2013; In this background, the amount deposited by the petitioner in terms of order dated 15.12.2009 with the Registrar General of this Court without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties cannot be permitted to be released to the petitioner and the application is dismissed.

At this stage, counsel for the respondent No. 2 presses that cost be imposed on the petitioner for filing an application without disclosing the true facts. Heard.

No order as to costs.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 gr

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.