Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonia Gupta & Anr vs The State Of Haryana on 20 August, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-20422 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-20422 of 2013
Date of Decision:-20.8.2013
Sonia Gupta & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr.Surender Deswal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Gourav Verma, AAG Haryana for the State.
Mr.S.S.Grewal, Advocate for the complainant.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The conspectus of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners and emanating from the record, is that, accused Vishal Gupta son of Om Parkash Gupta was the Director/share holder of M/s UFIPL Infrastructure Limited Company. He, on behalf of company, fraudulently entered into an agreement to purchase the land measuring 43 kanals 13 marlas, situated in the revenue estate of villages Uchana and Jhanjari, District Karnal, from accused Vinod Saini son of Rajender Kumar Saini for a total consideration amount of ` 10.74 crores. He has executed an agreement to sell in this respect. Accused Vinod Saini has received the earnest money of ` 4.75 crores from the company. The date for payment of remaining amount of sale consideration and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 5.1.2009. Sharma Arvind Kumar 2013.08.21 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-20422 of 2013 2 Complainant Vikas Mallan son of Ram Parsad Mallan (for brevity "the complainant"), an authorized signatory of the company, asked accused Vishal Gupta to get the sale deed executed and registered from the proposed vendor accused Vinod Saini. They delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. The other Directors of the company became suspicious and tried to find out the actual facts. During the course of inquiry, it revealed that Vinod Saini was neither the owner of the land in question nor holder of power of attorney of Ram Niwas Jindal son of Lal Chand at any time. He has no claim in the land in dispute in any manner. It also revealed that in the same manner, accused Vishal Gupta had earlier struck the deal of disputed land with Ram Niwas Jindal at a price of ` 1.25 crore per acre and got an agreement to sell executed in the name of trusted person and his long time employee Vinod Saini (co-accused). It was claimed that the accused have cheated the company and misappropriated the pointed earnest money in crores knowing fully well that Vinod Saini was neither owner nor has any power of attorney in this regard. They have the intention to cheat the company from the very beginning.
2. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that Sonia Gupta (petitioner No.1) is the real sister-in-law of main accused Vishal Gupta, whereas Sarita Takru (petitioner No.2) is Director in eight companies with main accused Vinod Saini. They have illegally withdrawn and received the huge amount out of the cheated amount from the accounts of accused Vishal Gupta & Vinod Saini in order to cause disappearance of evidence of offences with the intention of screening the Sharma Arvind Kumar 2013.08.21 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-20422 of 2013 3 offenders from legal punishment.
3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the petitioners along with their other co-accused, have hatched a criminal conspiracy, prepared the forged documents, cheated the company and misappropriated the amount of earnest money in crores. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused and their other co-accused, by way of FIR No.263 dated 14.3.2009 (Annexure P2), for the commissioner of offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal, in the manner depicted here-in-above.
4. Having exercised their right and remained unsuccessful before Additional Sessions Judge, now the petitioners have preferred the instant petition for anticipatory bail in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.
5. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.
7. Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that the only allegations of receipt of amount from the accounts of main accused are attributed to the petitioners and since the main allegations of commission of cheating, fraud and misappropriation are assigned to their other co- Sharma Arvind Kumar 2013.08.21 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-20422 of 2013 4 accused, so they (petitioners) are entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
8. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that petitioner No.1 Sonia Gupta is the real sister-in-law of main accused Vishal Gupta, whereas petitioner No.2 Sarita Takru is Director in many companies with main accused Vinod Saini. There are direct allegations that petitioner No.1 has withdrawn and received an huge amount of ` 25 lacs and petitioner No.2 has withdrawn and received the amount of ` 30 lacs, out of cheated amount, from the accounts of the main accused. The mere fact that Krishan Lal Taneja, co-accused of petitioners, has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, by means of order dated 27.1.2012 (Annexure P3) rendered in CRM No. M-36413 of 2011, ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless cogent, to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present petitioners, where in that petition, during the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Rajesh Bindal, J.) had observed that the transaction in favour of Krishan Lal Taneja had nothing to do with the sale and purchase of land by the parties. The fact was verified and State counsel on instructions from ASI Manjeet Singh, Investigating Officer, had stated that accused Krishan Lal Taneja had already joined the investigation and was no longer required for further interrogation. He was not, in any way, related to the main accused, whereas, in the present case, as indicated here-in-above, petitioner No.1 Sonia Gupta is the real sister-in-law of main accused Vishal Gupta, whereas petitioner No.2 Sarita Takru is Director in many companies with main accused Vinod Saini and have withdrawn the Sharma Arvind Kumar 2013.08.21 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-20422 of 2013 5 pointed amount out of the cheated amount in order to cause disappearance of evidence of offences with the intention of screening the offenders from legal punishment.
9. Sequelly, the next contention of learned counsel that neither the names of petitioners are mentioned nor any specific role or overt-act is attributed to them in the FIR and they deserve to be released on pre- arrest bail, again lacks merit.
10. As is evident from the record/status report that the petitioners were charged for hatching a criminal conspiracy with the main accused and shared the cheated amount. The offence of criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 120-B IPC is an independent offence and some general evidence pertaining to the conspiracy would be sufficient, to form part of the offence of conspiracy. As a matter of fact, some connecting link or connecting factor somewhat here and there in the evidence would be good enough to involve the petitioners. There is a very less possibility of direct evidence and the evidence of hatching such criminal conspiracy has to be gathered from the facts, situations and circumstances, oozing out from the evidence to be collected by the investigating agency. The receipt of huge pointed amount by the petitioners is indicative of the fact of their involvement with their acquainted accused.
11. Not only that, the Investigating Officer has submitted the status report dated 16.8.2013, in which, it has been specifically mentioned that "on 23.04.2011, complainant Vikas Mallan submitted complaint No.627 in the office of Superintendent of Police, Karnal seeking further investigation on the ground that money has been Sharma Arvind Kumar 2013.08.21 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-20422 of 2013 6 transferred in the account of Soniya Gupta, Sarita Takru, Vinod Saini, Ram Niwas Jindal, Vishal Gupta, Satpal Chauhan, Sandeep Sumani, Pixie Publication, Pixie Consultancy Rochak Feeds, Karnal Projects Karnal Residency. It is also submitted that the amount so received by Sh.Vinod Saini and it was further transferred in the accounts of above named accused persons. The cheques were also issued in favour of the petitioners." They have miserably failed to explain the transaction of huge amount of ` 25 lacs & 30 lacs. Their complicity in the commission of the crime is clearly borne out from the record/status report submitted by the prosecution. It cannot possibly be denied that the tendency and frequency of hatching such criminal conspiracy in order to cheat the people of crores of rupees have been tremendously increasing day-by-day in the society, which needs to be curbed with heavy hands.
12. Meaning thereby, the direct allegations of committing heinous offence of hatching criminal conspiracy and cheating are assigned to the petitioners. To me, their custodial interrogation is necessary to, remove the curtain from, ascertain the magnitude of the scam, recover the impugned amount and case property. If they are allowed the concession of anticipatory bail, then, the recovery of amount in question and case property is not possible and police will be deprived from unearthing the scam and effective investigation, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution. Therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
13. Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the Sharma Arvind Kumar 2013.08.21 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No. M-20422 of 2013 7 anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depends on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which, should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.PC is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. The order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest and investigation of the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. The Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby in this relevant connection.
14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the seriousness of allegations of hatching criminal conspiracy, preparing fake documents, cheating and misappropriation of crores of rupees against them and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed as such.
15. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail.
Sd/-
20.8.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
Sharma Arvind Kumar
2013.08.21 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document