Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raman Uppal vs State Of Punjab on 13 August, 2014
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-22223 of 2014 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
Crl. Misc. No. M-22223 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision : August 13, 2014 ***** Raman Uppal ............Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...........Respondent ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI ***** Present: Mr. J.S Bedi, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Diya Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Paras Talwar, Advocate for the complainant.
***** RITU BAHRI, J The petitioner is seeking grant of pre arrest bail in FIR No. 125 dated 10.6.2014 under Sections 406, 420 IPC registered at Police Station Phase I, S.A.S Nagar, District Mohali.
Brief background of the case can be gathered from the contents of the FIR No.69 dated 19.4.2012. In this FIR, petitioner Raman Uppal is the complainant. Allegations in the FIR were with regard to the fraud and forgery committed by thirteen accused with regard to the functioning of M/s International Customer Related RITU 2014.08.16 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-22223 of 2014 (O&M) 2 Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the ICRMS'). Vide Annexure P-1 dated 14.5.2001, an application under Form 1-A was made to the Registrar of Companies (ROC) for allocation of a name. In this application, the first name was of Raman Uppal and the second name should have been that of Promila Rani but it was changed to the name of Jagbir Singh. Subsequently vide letter dated 21.5.2011 with the cash receipt of Rs.500/-, the petitioner was informed that the said name was made available for the registration of the Company. Subsequently vide NOC dated 15.6.2001 (Annexure P-3), the Company was incorporated in the name of Itinderjit Singh and Jagbir Singh. Moreover as per the document Annexure P-4 dated 18.6.2001, Memorandum of Association contains the signatures of Itinderjit Singh and Jagbir Singh. On 24.6.2001, Mrs. Pawanjot Gill and Sukhbir S. Shergill were inducted as Additional Directors on 18.6.2001 and 23.6.2001 respectively. In this manner, Raman Uppal was removed and in his place Jagbir Singh and Itinderjit Singh were inducted as Promoter Directors. During the course of the functioning of the Company, a dispute arose between Sukhbir S. Shergill and his wife Gurbir Kaur Shergill and two inducted Directors i.e Jatinder S. Dua and his family members. A complaint was made by Sukhbir S. Shergill before the SSP Mohali with regard to the affairs of the ICRMS. Thereafter, the matter was compromised amongst themselves and the complaints were withdrawn. The FIR No. 69 dated 19.4.2012 under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC RITU 2014.08.16 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-22223 of 2014 (O&M) 3 (Annexure P-6) was registered through the Power of Attorney of the petitioner Mr. Deepinder Singh Dhaliwal.
As a counter blast to the registration of the FIR No. 69 dated 19.4.2012, a complaint (Annexure P-7) was made by Sukhbir S. Shergill and Jatinder S. Dua to the SSP, Mohali on 11.7.2012 alleging that the petitioner had prepared a Power of Attorney by impersonating himself to be Promoter Director of the ICRMS and appointed Deepinder Singh Dhaliwal as his attorney and got a false case registered to usurp the properties of the Company. This complaint was filed as per the report dated 8.8.2012 (Annexure P-8). Out of 13 accused in FIR No.69 dated 19.4.2012, 10 accused filed anticipatory bail applications before the Additional Sessions Judge, which were dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-9). All the ten accused then approached this Court and their anticipatory bail applications were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 1.2.2013 (Annexure P-10). Before the Supreme Court, Sukhbir Singh Shergill and his wife Gurbir Kaur Shergill were permitted to withdraw their SLP with liberty to surrender and pray for regular bail before the Supreme Court. The written statement and affidavit was filed by U.T Administration dated 1.3.2013 (Annexure P-12). After withdrawing the SLP from the Supreme Court, Sukhbir S. Shergill and his wife Gurbir Kaur Shergill were arrested on 17.7.2013. The petitioner, thereafter, came to know that they had sold the Company to Narinder Singh, complainant in the present FIR and Rajdeep Singh. On 15.7.2013, they had been appointed as new Directors, RITU 2014.08.16 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-22223 of 2014 (O&M) 4 despite the fact that Sukhbir S. Shergill and his wife Gurbir Kaur Shergill had been removed from the Company's Directorship on 29.9.2011. A subsequent FIR No. 175 dated 16.9.2013 (Annexure P-
14) was registered by the petitioner through Power of Attorney i.e Gurnihal Singh Pirzada with the allegations that Sukhbir S. Shergill and his wife Gurbir Kaur Shergill, Jeetmohinder S. Sidhu, Narinder Singh and Rajdeep Singh have conducted fraudulent transactions with regard to the affairs of ICRMS. Thereafter, FIR No. 193 dated 20.9.2013 was got registered by Rajdeep Singh and Narinder Singh under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Divisiion No. VII, Ludhiana against Sukhbir S. Shergill and his wife Gurbir Kaur Shergill alleging that they have represented themselves to be the sole owners of the ICRMS to the extent of 100% share and by concealing the correct facts and pending litigation, transferred the shares of the Company in the name of Rajdeep Singh and Narinder Singh.
The complainant of the present FIR, Narinder Singh filed a complaint under Section 156(3) before the Court of CJM, Mohali (Annexure P-17) for registration of the FIR (excluding Raman Uppal) for misappropriation of Company funds. An enquiry was ordered by the CJM, Mohali under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Economic Offence Wing (EOW) gave a detailed report to SP City-I, Mohali dated 26.12.2013 (Annexure P-
18).
After going through the report Annexure P-18, it has been found that Narinder Singh had no authority to file the RITU 2014.08.16 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-22223 of 2014 (O&M) 5 complaint on behalf of the Company M/s ICRMS. The resolution to file the criminal complaint was false. Both Sukhbir S. Shergill and Narinder Singh having the complete knowledge of the facts about the registration of the FIRs have filed the complaint by concealing the relevant facts and withholding material information from the Court. Narinder Singh and Rajdeep were illegally appointed as Additional Directors on 15.7.2013 and they seized to be Additional Directors as their appointment had not been confirmed in the next Annual General Meeting of the Company which was scheduled to be held on or before 30.9.2013.
As per the report of the Registrar of Companies (ROC) sought by the Investigating Officer, Police Station, Phase-I, Mohali Narinder Singh had obtained certified copies of certain records on 27.11.2013. He had also obtained the certified copies of the Annual Returns for the year 2011 which shows that Sukhbir S. Shergill and Gurbir Kaur Shergill were removed from the Board of Directors. Inspite of having this knowledge, Narinder Singh filed the complaint before the Mohali Court on 29.11.2013. As per the record of the ROC and as per Form 32 filed on 25.4.2006, Jatinder S. Dua and Sagar S. Dua were appointed as Directors on 15.11.20065 by the then shareholders of the Company.
As per the records of the ICICI Bank, Sector 9, Chandigarh, when the company account was opened in the Bank all the documents, resolutions were counter signed by Sukhbir S. RITU 2014.08.16 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-22223 of 2014 (O&M) 6 Shergill and Jatinder S Dua, Director was appointed as Sole Signatory of the Company. In the said resolution dated 3.12.2005, Jatinder S. Dua is shown to be a Director. The address of the Company is shown to be House No. 2144, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh, which has been attested by Sukhbir S. Shergill, the then Director of ICRMS.
On the basis of enquiry report sent by the Economic Offence Wing, Chandigarh (Annexure P-18), the Mohali Police submitted a report dated 14.2.2014 under Section 202 Cr.P.C (Annexure P-20) falsifying the allegations levelled by Narinder Singh.
Narinder Singh filed another complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the JMIC, Chandigarh levelling identical allegations as levelled in the complaint dated 29.11.2013 (Annexure P-17). In this complaint allegations in the present FIR against Deepinder S. Dhaliwal and Gurnihal S. Pirzada were levelled. After conducing an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C, the allegations of Narinder Singh were found to be false. The status report submitted by the EOW, Chandigarh Police dated 16.12.2013 and 13.1.2014 as (Annexure P-21 collectively). The present FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint dated 25.3.2014 against the petitioner alleging that he has pretended himself to be a promoter Director of the ICRMS and has got FIR No. 69 dated 19..4.2012 registered at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh. He has affected a settlement agreement through a Power of Attorney and has caused loss of Rs. Rs. 231 Crores to the Company. The FIR has been registered RITU 2014.08.16 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-22223 of 2014 (O&M) 7 without disclosing the enquiry reports dated 26.12.2013,14.2.2014 (Annexure P-18, P-20) and the status reports dated 16.12.2013 and 13.1.2014 (Annexure P-21 collectively). The important fact which has been highlighted in the enquiry report (Annexure P-18) is that in the FIR No.69 challans have been presented against Sukhbir Singh Shergill and Gurbir Kaur Shergill and some recoveries including two original share certificates of the ICRMS in the name of Raman Uppal and Promila Rani and some other crucial records have been recovered from the accused and the trial is about to start. Apart from the above said enquiries conducted, counsel for the petitioner has referred to the affidavit filed by the U.T Administration before the Supreme Court (Annexure P-11) when SLP has been filed by the accused in FIR No. 69 against dismissal of their anticipatory bail applications. In this affidavit it is so stated that for the purpose of receiving the investment for the purchase of the first asset of the ICRMS Funds to the tune of Rs. 1.10 Crores were transferred into the account of Sukhbir Singh Shergill by Parveen Nayyar (Rs.65,00,000/-) and associates of Raman Uppal (Rs.45,00,000/-). Smt. Promila Rani transferred Rs.25,00,000/- into the account of the company in the above bank. This amount was further transferred into the account of Sukhbir Singh Shergill and subsequently into the company account in the year 2001 for the purchase of property situated at B-101, Eltop Industrial Area, Phase VIII, Mohali. The signatory of these accounts was Sukhbir Singh Shergill who was inducted as Director of the ICRMS on 23.6.2001. During RITU 2014.08.16 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-22223 of 2014 (O&M) 8 investigation, it was found that amount in Crores of rupees had been diverted in the form of unsecured loans to the Companies belonging to the said accused or in their personal names or in the names of their immediate family members. No documentary evidence was shown as to how the loan had been settled between the said Companies who had been given the unsecured loans.
Counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the settlement agreements dated 4.10.2013 (Annexure P-31 collectively) between the petitioner and Jatinder S. Dua. The another aspect for consideration by this Court was that Jatinder S. Dua and Sagar S. Dua had entered into a settlement agreement with the petitioner since they were 90% shareholders of the Company. The fact that Shergills were holding only 10% of the shareholding has been admitted by them at the time when Sukhbir S. Shergill was granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 28.1.2014 (Annexure P-28). As per the settlement deed, Jatinder S. Dua/Sagar S. Dua have rescind from the commitment and a legal notice was given by the petitioner on 3.4.2014 (Annexure P-29). The settlement deed effected between the petitioner and Jatinder S. Dua is the subject matter in the present FIR. The allegations in the present FIR is also reflected from the statement made by Dr. Raj Singh, the ROC whose role as a an accused is a subject matter of trial in FIR No.69 dated 19.4.2012 Counsel appearing for the respondent i.e State of Punjab, Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj has argued that the complaint made RITU 2014.08.16 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-22223 of 2014 (O&M) 9 by Narinder Singh at Chandigarh would be investigated as the property in question was not in Mohali. Moreover as per the petitioner's case, he has been involved in the Company right from the year 2001 and has never objected to the functioning of the Company for the last 10 years. Even though last 10 years has rolled the custodial investigation would be necessary to unearth the scam of Rs. 231 Crores while managing and manipulating the affairs of the Company namely, ICRMS. The settlement agreements dated 4.10.2013 (Annexure P-31 collectively) with Jatinder S. Dua is illegal as this has been effected by way of appointment to attorneys i.e Deepinder Singh Dhaliwal and Gurnihal Singh Pirzada.
Learned senior counsel for the complainant Narinder Singh, Mr. Bipan Ghai has argued that they had purchased the shares of Sukhbir S. Shergill to the extent of 10% but at the same time 90% shareholder Mr. Dua went into an agreement with the petitioner could siphen off the entire company shares in favour of the person who has never been actively involved in the working of the Company. The documents Annexures P-1 to P-4 are not genuine documents and the original of the same have not been made available from the office of ROC till date.
After going through the entire facts of the present case, as per the enquiry reports (Annexure P-18, P-20 and P-21), the complainant Narinder Singh could not be appointed a Director as Sukhbir Singh Shergill and his wife Gurbir Kaur Shergill ceased to be a Director with effect from that date and thereafter at best the RITU 2014.08.16 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-22223 of 2014 (O&M) 10 complainant could be appointed as an Additional Director for a period of six months. On the date of filing of this FIR, they ceased to be the Directors of this Company. As per the enquiries, on the complaints made by Narinder Singh, no action was initiated by the CJM. In the present FIR, the allegations which were earlier made by Narinder Singh have been reiterated. This Court is of the view that at this stage, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. A direction is given that he shall join the investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
(I)that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (II)that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(III)that the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
Petition is allowed accordingly.
(RITU BAHRI)
August 13, 2014 JUDGE
ritu
RITU
2014.08.16 13:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh