(Indira Banerjee and M.R. Shah, JJ.)
Madhu Rani _______________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another ___________ Respondent(s).
Criminal Appeal No. 1600 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8723 of 2016], decided on October 21, 2019
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the application being Crl. M.C. No. 09 of 2015 filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court has refused to set aside the order dated 08.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, allowing a revisional application filed by the Respondent No. 2 and holding that the FDR deposited by the appellant in Court, pursuant to an order of Court at the time of consideration of her application for anticipatory bail, could only be withdrawn by the respondent no. 2, in whose name the FDR had been opened. The appellants had been discharged of all the offences alleged against them.
3. Respondent no. 2 had filed a complaint against the appellant and others for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC. The appellant moved an application for anticipatory bail, which was allowed vide an order dated 28.12.2005 on the condition that the appellant would keep an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in a fixed deposit in the name of respondent no. 2 – wife for a period of three years or until disposal of charge-sheet and deposit the FDR in Court. Later, by an order dated 30.8.2013, all the accused persons, including the appellant, were discharged. The order of discharge has attained finality.
4. The appellant, thereafter, moved an application for return of the FDR, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court by an order dated 13.10.2014. Respondent no. 2 – wife filed a revision application against the said order, before the learned Sessions Court. By an order dated 08.12.2014, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the said revision application on the following grounds:
i. It is an admitted position that the FDR is in the name of Respondent No. 2.
ii. In the order granting anticipatory bail to the appellant, the Sessions Judge had directed that the FDR be kept in Court for a period of three years or until the disposal of the charge sheet, whichever was later.
iii. There was no direction or condition as to who could encash the FDR after the said period.
iv. Since FDR was in the name of Respondent no. 2, it was only she who could encash the FDR.
v. It does not follow from the order granting anticipatory bail that the encashment could be made by the successful party.
5. The appellant challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Court in the High Court, by filing a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order. The High Court has confirmed the order passed by the learned Sessions Court. Hence, the present appeal.
6. We have perused the orders passed by the learned Trial Court, learned Sessions Court and the High Court. The appellant deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- pursuant to the order passed by the learned Trial Court granting anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail was granted to the appellant on the condition of the appellant keeping an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in an FDR in the name of respondent No. 2 for three years or till the disposal of the charge sheet, whichever was earlier. Afterwards, the appellant and other accused persons were discharged.
7. As the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was deposited by the appellant in the fixed deposit, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Court granting anticipatory bail, on condition that the same should not be encashed for a period of three years, or till disposal of the charge-sheet, it follows as a natural consequence that on discharge of the appellant from the offences alleged the appellant who had deposited the amount, would be entitled to get back the said amount.
8. It is true that there was no direction as to who would be entitled to encash the FDR after a period of three years. However, the fixed deposit was opened in the name of the respondent no. 2, as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail. The direction to keep the FDR unencashed for three years or till the disposal of the charge-sheet, whichever was later, makes it obvious that once the appellant was discharged, the appellant would be entitled to the amount in the fixed deposit. It was for the appellant to withdraw the amount accrued in the fixed deposit, deposited by the appellant as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail.
9. If the respondent No. 2 has any other right and/or entitlement, she has to approach the appropriate Court and obtain orders to crystalize her rights. Without any adjudication, respondent No. 2 shall not be entitled to encash the FDR which was deposited by the appellant as a condition for anticipatory bail. Learned Trial Court was justified in allowing the appellant to encash the FDR.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court as well as the learned Sessions Court are hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned Trial Court permitting the appellant to encash the FDR is hereby restored. The appellant shall be entitled to encash the FDR with accrued interest, if any. However, it is made clear that it will be open for respondent No. 2- wife to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of Stridhan etc., if permissible under the law, and such proceedings, if filed, shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8723/2016
Madhu Rani ________________________________________ Petitioner
v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr ________________ Respondent(s)
Date : 21-10-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Indira Banerjee and M.R. Shah, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kumar Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Aatreya Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Trivedi, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Teterwal, Adv.
Mr. Hemant Arya, adv.
Mr. Chakitan V.S. Papta, Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR
Mr. Rohit Minocha, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
11. Leave granted.
12. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
