Gujarat High Court
Nitendra Singh S/O Sh. Indar Pal Singh vs State Of Gujarat on 6 August, 2020
Author: B.N. Karia
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 3203 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
NITENDRA SINGH S/O SH. INDAR PAL SINGH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VIJAY H. PATEL FOR HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MAHARSHI V PATEL(6548) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for first informant
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for first informant
MS. M.H. BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 06/08/2020
CAV JUDGMENT
Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondentState and B.M. Mangukiya waives Page 1 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT service of notice of rule for and on behalf of first informant.
This application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for short) for enlarging him on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I299 of 2018 dated 09.10.2018 registered with Puna Police Station, Dist: Surat for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 507, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard learned advocate Mr. Vijay H. Patel for HL Patel Advocates, learned advocate for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. BM Mangukiya for first informant and learned APP for the respondentState.
Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant and complainant had a dream to purchase a hospital at Indore. They invested their money in the said hospital but unfortunately they both got cheated by the chairman of the said hospital. Hence, both are the victim in the present case. That, instead of recovering money from the real culprits, the Page 2 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT complainant chosen to twist arm of the applicant to get recover his money paid to Dr. Badlani. That, when the applicant and the complainant made a huge investment and both are the victim in the present case so one of the victim cannot file a complaint against another victim or one victim cannot compensate another victim. That, the applicant was trapped by Dr. Badlani and upon trusting him, applicant invested a handsome amount of money in the MIMS hospital and has borne a huge loss. He has been trapped and fooled by the chairman of the hospital and ended up being a victim himself. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed a complaint against Dr. Badlani/Chairman of the said hospital, but he could not follow up his complaint for being in judicial custody. If the applicant will continue to remain behind the bars, it may become more difficult to recover his and complainant's money/investment from Dr. Badlani, who himself is presently in judicial custody as he is habitual offender. That, family members of the applicant is struggling to recover their money back from Dr. Badlani and has been negotiating with his son and brother in Page 3 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT law, who has assured to return the money back. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that once it is returned back, the same shall be equally divided amongst the applicant and the complainant. That, the alleged Rs. 4.70 crore was not directly paid to the applicant and it was paid to the Chairman of the hospital who is in prison. That, the present FIR is the pressure tactics of the complainant to recover his money by putting the applicant and his family members behind the bars. That, the complainant has tried to threaten the applicant that "if the applicant fails to return back his money, then he will file a false criminal complaint against him". That, the present applicant is falsely booked under Sections of Forgery and Cheating. That, the charge sheet has been filed in the month of October 2019 and applicant has been thoroughly interrogated and the matter is investigated thus no further investigation or interrogation is required. Ultimately, learned advocate for the applicant requested to allow the present application by releasing the applicant on regular bail.
On the other side, learned advocate for the respondent Page 4 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT No.2 has opposed the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that the applicant is facing large numbers of criminal complaints and his modus operandi is to take the person in confidence and then defraud the person. That applicant is not even in hesitance of issuing cheques since all the cheques issued by him have been returned by his banker for not maintaining sufficient fund in the account. In fact, the applicant has issued two cheques of Rs. 50 lacs each in favour of the original complainant however, both the cheques have been returned unpaid and he made promise to give fresh cheques, however, he never issued fresh cheques. That, the applicant is habitual defrauder, who has defrauded large number of the people. That applicant was impressing one and everyone and he used to show the photographs of the partition, however, when the complainant inquired into the same, he learnt modus operandi of the applicant to picturise himself as a man of very heavy influence of political and otherwise by using said impression, the applicant is successful in defrauding several persons and Page 5 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT therefore, the release of the present applicant on bail would not be in the interest of general society at large since the applicant would use his gimmies and intelligence to defraud the people. That, an amount paid by the complainant to the applicant is not the amount of complainant himself but the present complainant has borrowed money from his relatives and friends so as to provide help to the applicant. That, the applicant is habitual offender, who has duped the large number of people including the present complainant and the said amount runs into crores of rupees i.e. more than about Rs. 10 crores or above. Ultimately, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 requested to dismiss the present application by not releasing the applicant on bail.
Per contra, learned APP for the respondentState has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and supported the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the respondent no.2 stating that if the complainant did not given the amount then as to why the accused gave him two cheques and in this case, the amount Page 6 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT has been given through cheques and RTGS and thereafter, not opening any hospital as per the assurance and while demanding the amount return back, both the cheques of Rs. 50 lacs each had been issued, which were returned back by the bank and many criminal cases are lodged against the present applicant. Learned APP has drawn attention towards the affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the lower court and argued that present applicant is the habitual offender of doing cheating and breach of trust and thus, learned APP for the respondentState has requested to dismiss the present application.
Having perused the documents produced on record, arguments advanced by learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondentState, it appears that on 9th October 2018, one Jitendra Maganbhai Nakrani filed a complaint against the present applicant and other stating that applicant and his wife Dr. Robin Gaur and his father Indrapal Singh Adal Singh and mother Rama Singh Indrapal Singh in collusion with each other hatched an alleged Page 7 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT conspiracy and represented to the complainant saying that they intend to buy a medical college, and therefore, the applicant was in search of a college to buy and by giving false promise to the complainant, the applicant asked him to become a partner with them and by giving him false assurances and by fabricating false documents and showing to the complainant, they obtained Rs. 4,70,00,000/ in total from the complainant during the period from June 2015 to September 2016, but they did not purchase any land or set up any college. When the complainant came to know about the fact and realized that he was duped by the applicant and other coaccused he requested to return back his money. Upon receiving the request from the complainant, the accused persons gave threat of dire consequences as well as abuses to the complainant. In respect of the outstanding amount, the accused gave two different cheques of ICICI Bank for Rs. 50 lacs each to the complainant but when the said two cheques were deposited by the complainant in his bank account, at that time, the same were dishonoured, and therefore, complainant Page 8 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT filed a complaint for initiating the investigation against 4 accused persons. As alleged in the complaint, present applicant supplied some papers to the complainant including (1) Fabricated possession letter in respect of land at Noida (2) Memorandum as well as email intimating that they have purchased Subharti College at Dehradun worth Rs. 300 crores (3) The dishonoured cheques (4) Writing made on Rs. 100/ stamp paper, (5) Letter of Chandigarh College (6) Accounts prepared by Nitendra Singh Indrapal Singh and writing of accounts prepared by him (7) Agreement letter given by the accused to the effect that they would give 5% share in the Gyan Sagar Medical College, Banur, Chandigarh (8) Photographs of Nitendra Singh Indrapal Singh with the Minister Digvijay Singh along with his wife, father and mother (9) Photograph of his house (10) Photograph of Nitendra Singh Indrapal Singh at Kalkaji Hospital (11) Trust deed regarding Gyan Sagar Medical College at Chandigarh given by the applicant to the effect that they have purchased the same for Rs. 250/ crores.
Page 9 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
It also appears that the investigation of the offence was made by the Police Sub Inspector and had recorded the statements of certain witnesses in respect of the case. During the course of the investigation, it was found that the present applicant and complainant studied in a college at Germany in the year 2002 and they were knowing to each other and they also used to talk to each other on telephone. In the year 2010, the present applicant contacted the complainant and informed that he would continue the profession of medical practitioner doctor and indulge into some other profession. It was further stated by the applicant that he had seen one college in MP and they have to take care of it and they had not to invest any amount but only had to do hard work. The complainant was asked to help the applicant, as he was not in a position to handle entire college. Relying upon the applicant and his version, he shown his readiness to be joined as a working partner, thereafter, the complainant was offered to join the management by becoming 25% partner and the complainant had only to invest 10% amount and the remaining 15% would Page 10 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT be considered as his hard work. As the complainant was unable to manage 10% of the amount, the applicant proposed him to become sub partner and asked him to pay Rs. 5,25,000/, and thereafter, he obtained the said amount and deposited in the account before Max Private Limited at Delhi. As there were some issues regarding the land at MP, they informed the complainant that they were to purchase a land at Delhi Yamuna Expressway in the name of Dr. Robin Gaur Foundation and they had shown forged authority letter of the land to the complainant and said that accused had given cheques for Rs. 5 crores and asked the complainant to pay Rs.50 lacs. Further, the accused persons gave enticement to the complainant and received another Rs. 50 lacs from him. Thereafter, the complainant was informed that there would be delay in purchasing the land at DelhiYamuna Expressway and as they had seen one medical college at Uttarakhand, which was old and in working condition and its value was of Rs. 300 crores, but the owners intended to sale it for Rs. 100 crores remaining amount was to be paid in installments, and Page 11 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT therefore, if the complainant would invest more than more, than his percentage of partnership would be increased and by that way, by obtaining confidence of the complainant, accused persons received total Rs. 1,70,00,000/ from him during the period from April 2016 to June 2016. After one month, complainant was called by the accused persons informing him that there was a dispute amongst the trustees at Dehradun College, and therefore, they did not intend to make deal with them and they cancelled the deal and they had seen one another college namely Modern Institute of Science at Indore and as his money got stuck in the land at Dehradun and as they have received a good deal, they did not want to lose the same, and therefore, they asked for another Rs. 50 lacs from the complainant. Therefore, the complainant magned the amount of Rs. 50 lacs and paid to the accused persons. Thereafter, the present applicant contacted the complainant on telephone and stated that his mother Rama Singh was having one land at MP and had sold the said land for Rs. 10 crores and as and when the sale consideration would be received by Page 12 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT them, they would return the amount to the complainant and as he was having requirement of further Rs. 75 lacs, he asked the complainant to pay the said amount, and therefore, the complainant manged Rs. 75 lacs and gave the said amount to the accused persons. After 15 days, again the accused persons contacted the complainant stating that remaining amount was to be paid to Dr. Badlani in respect of the land situated at Indore, and therefore, accused persons and the complainant met at Indore wherein he was informed that Rs. 10 crores was to be managed regarding the college and money had been arranged but only Rs. 75 lacs were to be arranged by the complainant and thus, again, the complainant paid the said amount of Rs. 75 lacs from his savings as well as by borrowing it from others, and thereafter, he remained under constant pressure and thereafter, the complainant and his wife went to the residence of the accused at Delhi and requested to return his money. He was assured by the applicant that he would pay entire amount which he had obtained from the complainant on or before 30th March 2017. Thereafter, as per the promise, Page 13 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT complainant telephoned the present applicant, at that time, he was informed that his money has got struck in the Saraswati Medical College at Lucknow and he would return the money before 30.04.2017. However, the amount was not paid to the complainant by the present applicant till 30.04.2017, and therefore, again he went to the house of the accused and asked for his money. It was replied by the present applicant that he had sold one land and amount of Rs. 5 crores as a sale consideration was to be received and as and when the said amount would be received, he would return the same to the complainant. The complainant informed that he had to return the amount to third party, and therefore, requested the present applicant to return the money, at that time, accused persons gave two cheques of Rs. 50 lacs each to the complainant stating that the said cheques were not to be deposited at that time because there was insufficient balance in the account and the said cheques would be returned. The complainant would be informed by the applicant the time when the cheques were to be deposited and asked the complainant to wait for the Page 14 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT time. The complainant being annoyed with the creditors as well as bank loan interest, again visited the house of the accused in the month of May 2017 and stayed there for certain period. As the accused persons were unable to manage the amount as agreed by them, executed writing on the stamp paper of Rs. 100/ to the effect that they would pay the amount of Rs. 4.85 crores till 31.03.2018 to the complainant and the cheques given by the accused for Rs. 50 lacs each were deposited with the bank but the said cheques were dishonoured. It appears that thereafter, the accused did not pay the amount till 31st March 2018. Several times, request was made by the complainant to the applicant to return his money and/or permit him in the management of the hospital, neither he was permitted to manage the hospital or money was paid to him, but he was threatened that if the money would be demanded by him, he wold be killed and he should forget the money. As the complainant did not receive his money, he came to know that the present applicant, his wife Robin, father Indrapal Singh and mother Rama Singh have hatched a Page 15 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT predetermined conspiracy by fabricating false documents and by using the same as genuine, they obtained Rs. 4,70,00,000/ from the complainant and they committed the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust with him as well as they gave threats by abusing to the complainant.
As per the affidavit filed by the complainant, following prosecution of FIR is facing by the present applicant and below mentioned FIR are recorded against him.
C.R. No.545 of 2016 under sections 23 and 35 of the PC & PNDT Act, 1994, lodged with Kalkaji Poilice Station, New Delhi.; C.R. No.256 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Economic of Wings Police Station, Delhi which is filed against the applicant and his wifeRobin Gaur, C.R. No.383 of 2019 under Section 88 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Kalkaji Police Station, New Delhi dated July 26, 2019; Criminal Case Nos.2638 of 2017; 2639 of 2017 and 2640 of 2017 filed against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the court of ld. Page 16 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT Metropolitan Magistrate07, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The allegation in the said criminal case is that the applicant has duped the complainants to the tune of Rs.29.90 lakhs. Criminal Case No.500387 of 2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of ld.42nd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D., J.M.F.C., Panvel, Maharashtra, alongwith his wife. Criminal ase No.500386 of 2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 in the court of ld.42nd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D., J.M.F.C., Panvel, Maharashtra, Criminal Case No.2083 of 2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of ld. Metropolital Magistrate33, South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi against his wife Robin Gaur. Criminal Case No.12959 of 2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate45, South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi, alongwith his wife Robin Gaur. Criminal Case No.35 of 2019, under Section XXXVII of the Recovery of Money Act in the court of ld. District Judge205, South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi, against his wife Page 17 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT Robin Gaur. Criminal Case No.4032 of 2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate774, South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi, against her wife. Criminal Case No.3625 of 2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate33, South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi against his wife. Criminal Case No.1155 of 2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of ld. Additional District Judge10, South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi, alongwith his wife Robin Gaur. Criminal Case No.1779 of 2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate61, South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi, against the wife of the applicant Robin Gaur. Criminal Case No.25340 of 2017, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate433, South West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi, Criminal Case No.22944 of 2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in Page 18 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate433, South West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. Criminal Case No.20686 of 2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate428, South West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. Criminal Case No.17849 of 2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate433 , South West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. Criminal Case No.17508 of 2017 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate758, South West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi, alongwith his wife. Criminal Case No.3686 of 2017 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate544, South West District Court, New Delhi. Criminal Case No.15097 of 2018 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate758, South West District Dwarka Court, New Delhi. Criminal Case No.10463 of 2018 under Section 138 of Negotiable Page 19 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate758, South West District, Dwarka Court. Criminal Case No.8482 of 2018 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate760, South West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. Criminal Case No.6315 of 2018 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate433, South West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. Criminal Case No.56728 of 2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate451, East District, Karkardoma Court, New Delhi. Criminal Case No.1764 of 2016 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate467, East District, Karkardooma court, New Delhi. Criminal Case No.23319 of 2016 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate40, West District, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. Criminal Case No.13243 of 2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Page 20 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT 1881 in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate45, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi. Criminal Case No.3430 of 2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate04, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. Criminal Case No.10140 of 2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate773, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. Criminal complaint case No.271 of 2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of ld. JMIC/SAs Nagar, UID No.PB0469, Mohali Punjab, against applicant and his wife.
This Court has also gone to the relevant material and the papers of the chargesheet produced during the course of hearing and is of the view that the prosecution has, prima facie, made out the case against the applicant for commission of the alleged offence. This Court has also considered the nature of the offence alleged against the present applicant and the severity of the punishment. It is clarified that observation Page 21 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/3203/2020 CAV JUDGMENT made by this court shall not be influenced the trial court and the same will not be come in the way of the applicant at the time of trial.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the present applicant and and accordingly, present application stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
(B.N. KARIA, J) BEENA SHAH Page 22 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 14 13:22:10 IST 2021