Dismissed
Raghav Mehra v. State & Ors.
Delhi HCCRL.M.C./229/2018
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C.…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAGHAV MEHRA
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Surinder Singh, Adv. Versus STATE & ORS ..... Respondents Through Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with ASI Veena Sharma, Dwarka for the State
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
O R D E R % 17.01.2018
There was a locker in the joint account of the petitioner and his wife (complainant). FIR No. 408/2014 under Sections 354/377/498A/406/34 IPC
was got registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh against the petitioner and some of his family members on the complaint of petitioner’s wife. The locker was opened in the presence of the petitioner, complainant, Investigating Officer and bank staff and articles (jewellery and coins) were seized. Complainant filed an application for release of seized jewellery and
other articles before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Petitioner objected to the release of same articles to complainant on the ground that same were neither istridhan nor the dowry articles. Petitioner alleged that he had purchased the said articles prior to his marriage and had shown the same in his wealth tax returns. Objections were raised in respect of one gold chain, one gold chain with Radha Kishan locket, one diamond set, earnings, one gold chain, one gold necklace, one diamond bracelet, one silver coin and seven gold ginnis . Trial court has noted that petitioner had given self declaration at the time of wealth tax returns, in as much as these articles were different than the articles mentioned in the list of seized articles as regards the specifications as well as the weight.
Learned trial court ordered for release of the seized jewellery on superdari to the complainant.
Aggrieved by this order, petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
I do not find any perversity in the impugned order. The jewellery was kept in the locker which was taken in the joint names of the complainant and petitioner, after their marriage. Only thereafter, jewellery was kept in the said locker, in as much as locker was operated by the
complainant all along. This itself shows, prima-facie, that these articles
were kept in the locker by the complainant after the marriage.
Petition is dismissed.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
JANUARY 17, 2018 r.bararia
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raghav Mehra
State
A.K. Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court