Delhi High Court - Orders
Vimla Jaiswal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 15 March, 2023
Author: Yogesh Khanna
Bench: Yogesh Khanna
$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 269/2023
VIMLA JAISWAL
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Avinash Kr.Lakhanpal, Mr.Piyush
Lakhanpal, Mr.Dhiraj Kumar,
Mr.Ashwani Kr.Tiwari, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Mukesh Kumar, APP for State
with SI Naresh Kumar, PS ACB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
ORDER
% 15.03.2023 CRL.M.A.6665/2023
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 269/20233. This petition is filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi in CC No.40/2020 and to call Trial Court record, whereby the protest petition filed against by the present petitioner against the closure report dated 09.09.2020 in favour of Inspector Shashi Kant Gaur was dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits his contentions as are noted in para 7 of the impugned order were never considered by the learned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:18.03.2023 14:55 Trial Court but whereas a bare perusal impugned order would show the following:
"12. It is a matter of record that case FIR No. 61/2010 u/s 7 of PC Act was registered at PS Crime Branch against Insp. Shashi Kant Gaur on the complaint of present complainant Sh. Anil Kumar Jaiswal. Insp. Shashi Kant Gaur was acquitted by the Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Appeal no. 680/2014 vide judgment dated 03.01.2017, copy of which is also placed on record. It is also mentioned in the present report that complainant Anil Kumar Jaiswal was arrested by Insp.Shashi Kant Gaur in January 2004 incaseFIRno.6/2004 u/s 411 IPC PS Sarai Rohilla and that complainant started property dealing in partnership with Sachin Malhotra, who was previously known to him and later on, on 09.09.2006, Sachin Malhotra got registered case FIR No. 291/2006 u/s 323/341/427/506 IPC PS Geeta Colony against Insp. Shashi Kant Gaur in which complainant was cited as eye witness and later on cancellation report was filed in that case andinMay2009, DCP/East recommended 182 IPC proceedings against them for giving false information to SHO PS Geeta Colony.
13. Initially during investigation, ACP Sh. Ramphal collected the copies of registered documents relating to property no. 146-A, Mansarovar Park, Delhi and property no.152, Jheel Khuranja from the office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi and also obtained the details of bank accounts which stand in the name of Insp. Shashi Kant Gaur, his wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. He also obtained the details of salary of Insp. Shashi Kant Gaur from Delhi Police from the date of joining till alleged period and the details of properties registered in the name of Shashi Kant Gaur in his native place i.e. Bijnore, UP. Sh. P.C.Agrawal, Government approved Chartered Accountant was got appointed by the 10 to analyze the incomes, savings and expenditure of Shashi Kant Gaur and his family members as well as of his father-in-law Sh.S.P. Tiwari of the check period i.e. 1991 to November, 2004. Sh. P.C.Agrawal after calculating the total salary and rewards received by Insp.Shashi Kant Gaur, interest income from tax saving boards and interest from other saving accounts as well as after considering the expenditure of his family concluded that Insp.Shashi Kant Gaur was having Rs.4,96,666/- from his savings after investment of money in two properties i.e. property no. 146-A, MansarovarPark, Delhi and 152, Jheel Khuranja, Delhi. Sh. P.C. Agrawal, CA, while calculating the assets/expenditure of Insp. Shashi Kant Gaur considered the cost of purchase of property no. 146-A, Mansarovar Park, Delhi as Rs.2,11,400/- and of property no.152,Jheel Khuranja as Rs.42,000/-.He further stated that after examining the FDRs and other accounts statements of Sh.S.P.Tiwari i.e. father-in-law of Insp. Shashi Kant Gaur including the retirement benefits concluded that FDRs made by Sh.S.P. Tiwari and family members were made from their accounts.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:18.03.2023 14:55
14. As per complainant, Insp. Shashi Kant Gaur purchased the property no.146-A, Mansarovar Park, Delhi for a sum of Rs.12,50,000/-. Complainant is not a witness regarding execution of the documents related to property of Mansarovar Park. The photocopies of Agreement to Sell and payment receipt of property no.146-A, Mansarovar Park, Delhi executed by Sh.A.K.Bhushan in favour of Leena Gaur wife of Sh. Shashi Kant Gaurs how that same was sold for a sum of Rs.12,50,000/-. However, during investigation, IO collected the documents regarding sale of property by Ms. Leena Gaur in favour of Smt. Sharda Garg, who confirmed that she purchased the said property only for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. Later on, the valuation of this property was also got valued through government valuer and as per report of Sh. Kamal Chawla, Government approved valuer which is part of the closure report, the valuation of property i.e. flat no. l46-A, DDA Flat, Mansarovar Park, Delhi was Rs.4,78,840/- as on November, 2004.
15. As per complainant, Insp.S.K.Gaur purchased built up plot no.152,Jheel Khuranja, Block-C, Delhi in Khasra no.289/84/1 for a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- and he signed on the documents regarding the sale i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Possession letter and receipt as a witness. The irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 23.11.2004 is executed by Ms. Suman Chabra D/o Late Sh. Achraj Ram in favour of Mrs. Leena Gaur w/o Sh. Shashi Kant Gaur in respect of built up propertyno.152, measuring area 111.7/8 Sq. Yds. From ground floor upto last story situated at abadi of Jheel Khuranja, Shahdara, Delhi for a consideration of Rs40,000/-. Apart from this registered document, one photocopy of Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and Possession letter are notarized documents by one Sh.S.P.Chopra, Notary Public relating to the same property. One photocopy of receipt which is neither registered nor notarized is also on record regarding the sale of the said property for a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- and complainant is also witness in all these documents. During investigation, statement of Sh. S.P.Chopra, Notary Public was recorded by the IO and as per his statement, the signatures and the seals which appeared on the photocopies are different from his original signatures and there was notarial number of his register.
16. Thus, there are two sets of documents on record regarding sale of property no.152, Jheel Khuranja, Delhi executed by Ms.Suman Chabra D/o Late Sh.Achraj Ram in favour of Mrs. Leena Gaur w/o Shashi Kant Gaur. One certified copy of the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney which was registered on 23.11.2004 by the parties in respect of abovesaid property is on record and as per registered GPA, the property no.152, Jheel Khuranja, Delhi was sold for a consideration of Rs40,000/- and this document was also signed by complainant as a witness. In the other set of documents i.e. photocopies of Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Possession Letter except the receipt, other documents were notarized by the Notary Public Sh.S. P. Chopra. The sale consideration in the photocopy of Agreement to Sell regarding the aforesaid property is also mentioned as Rs.40,0001-, while in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:18.03.2023 14:55 the photocopy of the receipt, the amount is mentioned as Rs.18,50,000/-. If we consider that the sale consideration amount of Rs.40,000/- was mentioned in registered GPA with the intention to save the stamp duty by the parties and therefore, the same was got registered on the circle rate of the area and the another set of documents which are notarized were prepared to have a proof that property was infact sold at higher price, then there is no explanation why the sale consideration is also mentioned as Rs.40,000/-on the Agreement to Sell, which was only got notarized through the Notary Public and same also bears the signature of complainant. It is also not clear that when the other set of the documents such as Agreement to Sell, Possession Letter and Affidavit were notarized, why the receipt of Rs.18,50,000/- was not got notarized by the parties at the relevant time. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer has also placed on record the notification no. 21/40/99-PD(PT) dated 28.11.2001 of Department of Personnel CBI which was issued regarding clarification regarding the investigation of DA cases and it is mentioned wherein that the immovable properties have to be valued at the registered deed value for the investigation of DA cases.
17. Complainant has alleged in his complaint that Insp. Shashi Kant Gaur has purchased properties in the name of other relatives and in this regard, the details of the bank accounts of Sh. S.P. Tiwari, father-in-law of Insp. Shashi Kant Gaur were collected and same were analyzed by Sh. P. C. Agrawal, CA, who concluded in his report that FDRs made by Sh.S.P.Tiwari and family members were made out of his income. If the plea of mortgage of the properties to secure the loan amount is not considered, even then, there is no ground to issue direction for further investigation."
5. At this stage the learned APP for the State submits a bare perusal of the closure report would show minute investigation qua the assets of Inspector Shashi Kant Gaur as well as his father-in-law was done and the present complaint is motivated for reasons as are mentioned in para 12 of the impugned order. The learned APP for the State seeks time to take instructions.
6. List on 17.08.2023 and in the meanwhile the E- record of Trial Court be also requisitioned and be tagged with the file prior to the next date.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
MARCH 15, 2023/DU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:18.03.2023 14:55