Delhi High Court - Orders
Sh Pawan Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 9 February, 2023
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~7 to 9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2391/2022 & CRL.M.A.20539/2022
SH PAWAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Advocate
and Ms. Shivika Gupta, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through:
Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State
with S.I. Hawa Singh, P.S: Mangol
Puri.
Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Advocate with Mr.
Sunil Singh, Advocate for the
complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 2749/2022 & CRL.M.A.20593/2022
SUDHA KUMARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Advocate
and Ms. Shivika Gupta, Advocate.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through:
Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State
with S.I. Hawa Singh, P.S: Mangol
Puri.
Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Advocate with Mr.
Sunil Singh, Advocate for the
complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 2775/2022 & CRL.M.A.20540/2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERAJ
Signing Date:16.02.2023 Bail Appl. 2391/2022, 2749/2022 & 2775/2022 Page 1 of 6
15:23:57
VANSH CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Advocate
and Ms. Shivika Gupta, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State
with S.I. Hawa Singh, P.S: Mangol
Puri.
Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Advocate with Mr.
Sunil Singh, Advocate for the
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 09.02.2023 The petitioners in these 03 cases, who are respectively father, mother and son, seek anticipatory bail under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.').
2. The petitioners are under investigation in case FIR No.360/2022 dated 02.02.2022 registered under sections 406 of Indian Penal Code 1860 ('IPC') and sections 4/11/76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 and sections 3/4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 at P.S: Mangol Puri, Delhi, which has come to be registered pursuant to order dated 20.03.2022 made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, New Delhi on an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEERAJ Signing Date:16.02.2023 Bail Appl. 2391/2022, 2749/2022 & 2775/2022 Page 2 of 6 15:23:573. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits, that the order directing registration of the FIR categorically said the following:
"10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the complaint, prima- facie cognizable offences are made out under The Chit Funds Act, 1982 and The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. SHO Mangolpuri is directed to register the FIR under relevant sections and conduct investigation in the present matter."
(emphasis supplied)
4. That notwithstanding, it is submitted that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) has gone ahead and also included section 406 IPC in the FIR, despite specific directions of the learned Magistrate to register an FIR under relevant sections of the Chit Funds Act and the Prize Chits Act.
5. It is also submitted, that the complainant had issued to the petitioners notice dated 25.05.2018 seeking refund of money allegedly paid to them, which notice demanded only the sum of about Rs.3.55 lacs; but the complainant now contends that about Rs. 83.25 lacs is due towards refund of money allegedly advanced to the petitioners, without any particulars, details or basis to the inflated claim. It is pointed-out that the Rs. 83.25 lacs now demanded relates to the period prior to the issuance of the notice; but did not find mention anywhere in the notice, which was restricted only to about Rs. 3.55 lacs.
6. Mr. Mathur further submits, that cognizance of the offences alleged under the Chit Funds Act and the Prize Chits Act cannot be taken since those would be time-barred in view of section 468 Cr.P.C.; and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEERAJ Signing Date:16.02.2023 Bail Appl. 2391/2022, 2749/2022 & 2775/2022 Page 3 of 6 15:23:57 therefore, the attempt now is to include other offences in the FIR to circumvent the issue of limitation.
7. Notice on these petitions were issued on 08.08.202 and 14.09.2022;
and vide order dated 15.09.2022, an interim protective order was granted in Bail Appl No. 2775/2022, which was subsequently also extended to the other 02 petitioners inter-alia as recorded in order dated 11.10.2022.
8. Mr. Mathur argues, that in the circumstances as explained, the petitioners be granted anticipatory bail.
9. The court has also heard Mr. Rajiv Khosla, learned counsel appearing for the complainant; who opposes grant of anticipatory bail, submitting that the petitioners have been unlawfully running a chit fund scheme and have collected vast sums of money, much in excess of the claim of the present complainant, from various other people. Mr. Khosla submits, that this is admitted in an FIR filed by the petitioner Pawan Kumar (father) against the complainant in Delhi; and that therefore, the matter has wider ramifications.
10. Mr. Khosla also disputes Mr. Mathur's submission that cognizance of offences under the Chit Funds Act and the Prize Chits Act would be time-barred.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP appearing for the State, on instructions of I.O. S.I. Hawa Singh, P.S: Mangol Puri, submits that the father has been summonsed for investigation and has been co-operating; but insofar as the mother and son are concerned, they have not yet been called for investigation.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEERAJ Signing Date:16.02.2023 Bail Appl. 2391/2022, 2749/2022 & 2775/2022 Page 4 of 6 15:23:5712. Mr. Haider fairly submits, that so long as all 03 accused co-operate in investigation, as and when called by the I.O., their custodial interrogation is not required, at this stage.
13. In the opinion of this court, Mr. Khosla's submission that investigation in the subject FIR must not be restricted to the amount claimed by the complainant but should be expanded to monies alleged to have been collected by the petitioners from other persons, who are neither identified nor complainants in the present case, is untenable. In any case, that cannot be a consideration for deciding the present anticipatory bail petitions. Besides, whether or not custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required, is to be answered by the I.O. since he is the person in-charge of the investigation.
14. In view of the above, the court is persuaded to allow the present petitions; which are accordingly disposed of, with a direction that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be admitted to bail by the I.O./Arresting Officer subject to the following conditions:
14.1 The petitioners shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each with 02 sureties in the like amount from family members, to the satisfaction of the I.O./Arresting Officer;
14.2 The petitioners shall furnish to the Investigating Officer/S.H.O cellphone numbers on which the petitioners may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the numbers are kept active and switched-on at all times;
14.3 The petitioners shall not travel out of the country without permission of the learned trial court; and shall ordinarily reside Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEERAJ Signing Date:16.02.2023 Bail Appl. 2391/2022, 2749/2022 & 2775/2022 Page 5 of 6 15:23:57 at their address/es in Delhi, which address/es the petitioners shall provide to the Investigating Officer/SHO; 14.4 If the petitioners have passport(s), they shall surrender the same to the I.O./SHO;
14.5 The petitioners shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case.
The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending matter.
15. Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.
16. Other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J FEBRUARY 9, 2023 Ne Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEERAJ Signing Date:16.02.2023 Bail Appl. 2391/2022, 2749/2022 & 2775/2022 Page 6 of 6 15:23:57