Mukesh Khurana v. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal
\:
$-64 & *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5926/2019 & CRL MA 40790/2019 MUKJESH KHURANA Petitioner Through Mr. Gorang Gupta & Mr. Arun Vohra, Advs.
versus VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL Respondent Through Respondent in person +/ CRL.M.C. 5928/2019& CRL MA 40794/2019 MUKESH KI-IURANA Petitioner Through Mr. Gorang Gupta & Mr. Arun Vohra, Advs.
versus SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL Respondent Through Mr. Satish Pandey, Adv..
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
ORDER
% 21.11.2019 CRL.M.A. 40791/2019 in CRL.M.C. 5926/2019 & CRL.M.A. 40795/2019 in CRL.M.C. 5928/2019 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Both the applications stand disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 5926/2019 & CRL.M.C. 5928/2019 By way of the above captioned petitions, the petitioner seeks directions thereby to reduce the amount of surety bond and set aside order dated By:AMULYA
17.09.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in R.P. No. 152/2018 and also the order dated 10.04.2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case Nos. 12920/18., 14174/18, 13522/18, 13404/18, 11795/18 & 14049/18 in CRL.M.C. 5926/2019 and Complaint Case Nos. 3226/18, 3302/18, 3227/18.3301/18, 3222/18 & 3221/18 in CRL MC 5928/2019.
The respondent, who is present in the Court, has agreed to the proposal put forth by the petitioner that in case of reduction of the surety amount to ?1.5 lacs in all the above mentioned complaint cases and if the petitioner will not retum from abroad, in that likelihood one of the properties of the petitioner may be confiscated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instmctions submits that the wife of the petitioner stood surety for him and he shall furnish the details of such a property to the learned Trial Court.
Accordingly, the Trial Court is directed to continue the personal bond of the petitioner herein and surety bond (of his wife) furnished before it, for a reduced amount of ?.1.5 lac each to its satisfaction. The petitioner is directed to move an appropriate application in this behalf before the Trial Court indicating therein the details of such property owned by him and the Trial Court shall pass an order accordingly. With these observations, both these petitions stand disposed of along with the pending applications.
Order dasti.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT,J NOVEMBER 21, 2019 sm
$-3 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5928/2019 MUKESH KHURANA Petitioner Through:
Mr. Gorangg Gupta and Mr. Vineet Gupta, Advs. with petitioner in person versus SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL Respondent Through:
Mr. Deepanshu Choithani and Mr. Rudrashish Bhardwaj, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
ORDER
% 14.01.2020 CRL.M.A. 42538/2019 Vide the present application, the applicant/ petitioner seeks modification in order dated 21.11.2019.
The present petition is filed on the ground that the modification sought in the present petition has been allowed by this Court in CRL.M.C. 5926/2019 vide order dated 16.12.2019.
The applicant in the instant application has mentioned the properties in paragraph No. 3 of the application which are in the name of wife of the petitioner.
On taking the property as security, the trial Court shall take no objection from the wife of the petitioner specifically mentioned therein that if the petitioner does not return from abroad, her property shall be confiscated.
y- / In view of the above, the present application is disposed of. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master. SHKUM SURESHKUMARKAIT, J JANUARY 14, 2020 (t<B