The Delhi High Court has held that the seizure of property under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not become invalid or “vitiated” merely due to a delay by the police in reporting the seizure to the Magistrate. While adjudicating a petition under Section 482 CrPC, Justice Saurabh Banerjee set aside lower court orders that had allowed the de-freezing of a bank account solely on the grounds of delayed reporting, emphasizing that “forthwith” must receive a reasonable construction.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from FIR No. 236/2013, registered on November 28, 2013, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner, Narinder Kumar Nangia, alleged that Respondent No. 2 fraudulently sold a plot of agricultural land to a third party using a registered Sale Deed dated January 25, 2011, despite the petitioner holding the original title deed as security for a loan.
A portion of the proceeds from this allegedly fraudulent sale was deposited into Respondent No. 2’s account at ICICI Bank, Janak Puri. Consequently, the Investigating Officer (IO) froze the bank account on August 27, 2014, under Section 102(1) CrPC and intimated the Trial Court on September 23, 2014.
Respondent No. 2 moved an application for de-freezing the account, which was allowed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Trial Court) on April 5, 2022, citing “considerable” and “unexplained” delay in reporting the seizure. This decision was subsequently upheld by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge (Revisional Court) on August 20, 2022.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioner: Counsel for the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shento Varghese vs. Julfikar Husen (2024). It was argued that the term “forthwith” in Section 102(3) CrPC is directory rather than mandatory. They contended that mere delay should not vitiate the seizure, as it constitutes an irregularity that can be addressed through departmental action rather than by nullifying the seizure itself.
For the State: The learned APP supported the petitioner, stating that the investigation revealed the use of fraudulent modes and forged documents. She asserted that the funds were rightly frozen to secure the proceeds of the alleged crime.
For Respondent No. 2: The respondent’s counsel also cited Shento Varghese, but argued that the delay must be “properly explained.” He pointed to the Trial Court’s finding that the delay was significant and ignored by the investigating agency, thereby justifying the de-freezing order.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court focused on whether the term “forthwith” under Section 102(3) CrPC requires immediate compliance and if failure to do so vitiates the seizure.
Citing the Supreme Court in Shento Varghese, the Court noted:
“The expression ‘forthwith’ means ‘as soon as may be’, ‘with reasonable speed and expedition’, ‘with a sense of urgency’, and ‘without any unnecessary delay’.”
The Court observed that “forthwith” should be understood as allowing a “reasonable time” depending on the circumstances, as there is no fixed statutory timeframe. Crucially, the High Court reiterated the principle that:
“…the act of seizure would not get vitiated by virtue of such delay.”
The Court explained that if a Magistrate finds an unexplained delay or deliberate negligence by an official, the appropriate remedy is to direct “appropriate departmental action” against the erring official, rather than lifting the seizure. The Court noted that the effect of non-compliance is an issue to be adjudicated during the trial at the stage of appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding whether any prejudice was caused to the accused.
Decision of the Court
The High Court concluded that the Trial Court and the Revisional Court erred by vitiating the seizure based on the delay in reporting.
“As such, the learned Trial Court could not have vitiated the seizure made under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. by passing the impugned order.”
The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to set aside the orders dated August 20, 2022, and April 5, 2022. The petition was allowed, effectively maintaining the freeze on the bank account.
Case Details
Case Title: Narinder Kumar Nangia vs. The State & Anr.
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 4599/2022
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Date: April 17, 2026
