Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhbir Singh Shergill And Another vs U.T. Chandigarh on 1 February, 2013
Author: K. C. Puri
Bench: K. C. Puri
Crl. Misc. No. M- 36592 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M- 36592 of 2012(O&M)
Decided on : 01 .02.2013
Sukhbir Singh Shergill and another
Petitioners.
vs.
U.T. Chandigarh
Respondents
Present : Mr. A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate with
Mr. P.P.S.Theti, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh
Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the complainant.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 37531 of 2012 (O&M)
Sagar Singh Dua and another
.... Petitioners
versus.
U.T. Chandigarh
.... Respondents
Present : Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. R.S.Athwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh
Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the complainant.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 35350 of 2012 (O&M)
Crl. Misc. No. M- 36592 of 2012 2
Madan Singh and others
...... Petitioners
vs.
U.T. Chandigarh
...... Respondents
Present : Mr. R.S.Athwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh
Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the complainant.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 35903 of 2012 (O&M)
Itinderjit Singh
.... Petitioner
vs.
U.T. Chandigarh
..... Respondents
Present : Mr. K.S.Sidhu, Senior Advocate with
Mr. U.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh
Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the complainant.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
K. C. PURI, J.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 36592 of 2012 3 By this common order I intend to dispose of Criminal Misc. No. M- 36592 of 2012 titled as Sukhbir Singh Shergill and another versus U.T. Chandigarh ; Criminal Misc. No. M 37531 of 2012 titled as Sagar Singh Dua and another vs. U.T. Chandigarh ; Criminal Misc. No. M- 35350 of 2012 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. U.T. Chandigarh and Criminal Misc. No. M- 35903 of 2012 titled as Itinderjit Singh vs. U.T. Chandigarh as these petitions have arisen out of the same incident and FIR. For convenience facts are being taken from Criminal Misc. No. M- 36592 of 2012 titled as Sukhbir Singh Shergill and another vs. U.T. Chandigarh.
2. The aforesaid petitioners have presented these petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short - the Cr. P. C.) grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.69 dated 19.4.2012 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh.
3. The law was set in motion by submitting application by Raman Uppal, who has stated that he was engaged in business of manufacturing of automotive parts and had graduated from St. Stephen's College, Delhi and he was looking forward for business at Chandigarh/Punjab Region. He used to come to Chandigarh frequently and he met Shri Sukhbir Singh Shergill and his wife Smt. Gurbir Kaur Shergill socially on various occasions as they were common friends with one Gurnihal S. Pirzada. He also came in contact with Shri Jatinder Singh Dua, who was his junior at St. Stephen's College in Delhi. In pursuant to his investment plans a plot was purchased Crl. Misc. No. M- 36592 of 2012 4 in Industrial Area Mohali bearing No.C-126 to float a company. He handed over all the papers to Shri Sukhbir Singh Shergill for the purposes of incorporation of company in his name and in the name of Mrs. Promila Rani his wife. A sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was given in cash. The company was to be incorporated in the name of complainant and his wife but Shri Sukhbir Singh Shergill manipulated the document and incorporated the company showing in the name of Itinder Singh and Jagbir Singh. It is also a case of the prosecution that Shri Sukhbir Singh Shergill himself became the Director of the said Company. It is further alleged that in the year 2005 Jatinder Dua and Sagar Dua were made Directors to promote the business of the Company. However, said Jatinder Dua and Sagar Dua using the funds of the Company running into crores of rupees and purchased the properties in his name and in the name of their relatives who are also accused in the present case.
4. It is alleged that Jatinder Dua and Sagar Dua etc., illegally by forging the document said to have transferred 90,000/- share in his name in the year 2011. The application for allotting the name of firm was submitted by Raman Uppal. The Registered Office of the Company sent reply addressed to Raman Uppal. It is further alleged that Jagbir Singh, who has been shown to be the promoter/Director has made statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. with the police that he was never a Director of the company and all the documents showing him as director and his resignation are forged one. From the documents placed on the file it is revealed that initial capital of Rs.65,000,00/- was provided by Parveen Nayar son of Crl. Misc. No. M- 36592 of 2012 5 Raman Uppal. Although during the course of arguments it is alleged that out of the said amount some amount has been returned to him. It has come on record that number of property has been purchased in the name of Ravinder Dua and Sagar Dua or their family members through different sale deeds out of the funds of the company.
5. The learned State counsel has placed documents on the file and from perusal thereof it is clear that from the account of the company several hundred crores have been withdrawn for personal use by Sukhbir Singh Shergill, Ravinder Dua and Sagar Dua.There are documents on the file in which it is mentioned that Sukhbir Singh Shergill and his wife have filed cases against Jatinder Singh and his family members that the latter has embezzled the property of the company running into crores of rupees. No doubt, during the course of arguments, it has been stated that there is no dispute between Shergill family and Dua families now but the fact remains that the allegations of embezzling huge amount or property running into crores of rupees and withdrawing few hundred crore rupees from the account of the company is prima facie proved on the file. None of the counsel appearing for the petitioners could point out that any of the amounts has been invested by any of the petitioners. The funds have been provided by Parveen Nayar and other firms which according to Raman Uppal were the sources arranged by him. It is a strange matter that without investing any amount, property worth crores of rupees have been purchased by the petitioners. The documents placed on the record shows that Raman Uppal was the promoter Director of the Company, as Form A1 Crl. Misc. No. M- 36592 of 2012 6 has been filed in his name, fees has been paid in his name and letter was issued by the Registrar of Company to him for choosing the name of the Company. Although it is photostat copy and authenticity of the same has to be verified by the investigating officer but according to the letter placed on the file, the company office has narrated that after five years of the occurrence documents are destroyed.
6. Even according to the case of Ravinder Dua and Sagar Dua, share has been transferred in their names in the year 2001.
7. The arguments advanced before this Court are not other than the arguments advanced before the trial Court and those arguments were duly dealt in while dismissing the application of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail.
8. None of the counsel for the petitioners have placed any document on the file to show that at the initial stage of incorporation, the application was moved by any of them except Jagbir Singh nor has placed any documents on the file to show that letter was sent to any of them for choosing the name of the company. Jagbir Singh is stated to have resigned on 26.6.2001 vide Annexures C-12 but as per prosecution story his signatures regarding resignation are forged one. The initial application is filed by Jagbir Singh and Raman Uppal as per Form Annexure A-1.
9. During the course of arguments, the bank account has been shown to be opened in the name of Promila and the petitioners could not point out how that account was opened in the name of Promila when she was not the Director of the Company. Personal Bank Guarantee of Raman Crl. Misc. No. M- 36592 of 2012 7 Uppal was provided for securing loan of Rs.1.50 crores for company. Raman Uppal would be the last person to provide personal guarantee in favour of company had he no concern with the company. The learned State counsel has also placed on record copy of the cheque of Rs.15,00,000/- in the name of Raman Uppal dated 25.9.2009 issued by M/s Fateh Homes Pvt. Ltd. Signed by authorized signatory, though during the course of arguments it is stated by the petitioners that the said amount has been given to Raman Uppal as loan but the counsel for the petitioners have fair enough to concede that no legal proceedings have been initiated against Raman Uppal for recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- given to him on 25.09.2009 through Fateh Homes Pvt. Ltd. The said cheque seemed to issued by petitioner Jatinder Singh Dua. Raman Uppal would not have been given Rs.15,00,000/- as charity in case he would not have any concern with the ICRMS firm. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not explain under what circumstances huge property in the name of Jatinder Singh Dua and Sagar Singh Dua and their family members have been purchased out of the funds of the ICRMS. Moreover, Sukhbir Singh Shergill has himself made complaint against Jatinder Singh Dua and his family members before various authorities complaining that Jatinder Singh Dua and his family members have embezzled crores of rupees belonging to company ICRMS.
10. The allegations are in respect of huge embezzlement running into hundreds of crores and that can be unearthed only by custodial interrogation. It is strange that by not investing even a single penny Jatinder Singh Dua etc. have withdrawn hundreds of crores of rupees from Crl. Misc. No. M- 36592 of 2012 8 the account of the company for personal use or for purchase of property in the name of their family members. Fraud of huge magnesium required further investigation and grant of anticipatory bail, at this stage shall hamper the investigation.
11. So, in view of the above and without meaning to express any opinion the merits of the main case, all the bail applications are without any merit and the same stand dismissed.
12 A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C. PURI )
February 01, 2013 JUDGE
sv