JUHI MODI Vs. NEERAJ GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of an order dated 22nd February, 1999 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate by which items listed at Nos. 1 & 8 of the seizure memo dated 15th October, 1998 were ordered to be delivered to Neeraj Gupta, respondent No. I on his executing superdiginarna in the sum of Rs. 30,000.00.

(2.) It is admitted case of the parties that after the registration of FIR No. 997/98 under Sections 406/498-A/34, Indian Penal Code PS Sriniwas Puri on the complaint made by the petitioner against her husband respondent No. 1 and others on 14th October, 1998, a raid was conducted by the Police and, amongst others, one double bed, one sofa set and one dressing table were seized from the bed room of petitioner and respondent No. 1. These items are listed at SI. Nos. 1 & 8 in the seizure memo dated 15th October, 1998. It is further not in dispute that on this application filed on 16th October, 1998 by the petitioner before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, by the order dated 17th October, 1998 the seized articles including at Nos. 1 & 8 were released in her favour on execution of a superdigmama in the sum of Rs. 50,000.00 . Later on, respondent No. 1 filed an application for release of the items 1,5 and 8 of the seizure memo dated 15th October, 1998 in his favour. During the course of arguments prayer for release of item at SI. No. 5 was not pressed. As noticed above, by the order under challenge items at Nos. I & 8 of the memo were allowed to be released on superdari in respondent No. 1's favour.

(3.) Respondent No. I claims that items at Nos. 1 & 8 are owned by GE Capital Services Ltd. with whom he was employed and he was allowed to use them by the employer. Aforesaid order dated 22nd February, 1999 also notices that the said items of furniture were purchased by GE Capital Services Ltd. from Supriya Designer and Consultant and payment of the sale consideration amount was made by former to the latter through a cheque. It would not be out of place to mention that qua the said items it is alleged in the FIR that for the furniture lying in the room of the petitioner and respondent No. I money was to be paid by the parents of the petitioner and the father of the petitioner made payment of Rs. 2,50,000.00 to the parents of respondent No. 1 on that account. However, for the reasons which I will be referring hereinafter it is not necessary to examine the rival stand taken by the parties in the matter.