Delhi District Court
State vs Hardeep Singh Etc on 25 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANAV JOSHI, ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NEW DELHI, PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case No. 41713/2016
STATE Vs. H. S. CHAUDHARY & ORS.
FIR No. 184/2003
PS Tilak Marg
&
Cr. Case No. 40397/2016
STATE Vs. HARDEEP SINGH & ORS.
FIR No. 282/2003
PS Tilak Marg
&
Cr. Case No. 40415/2016
STATE Vs. HARDEEP SINGH & ORS.
FIR No. 301/2003
PS Tilak Marg
ORDER ON CHARGE
1.Vide this common order, the order on charge against the accused persons in case FIR No. 184/2003, 282/2003 and 301/2003, PS Tilak Marg shall be passed, as the all these FIRs pertains to the same complaint against different accused by the same complainant.
2. In case FIR No. 184/2003, PS Tilak Marg, Sh.
Hardeep Singh Chaudhary, Sh. Manoj Gulati (since expired), Sh. Ajay Hasija, and Sh. Sanjeev Karan Singh were arraigned as accused. In FIR No. 282/2003, PS Tilak Marg, Sh. Hardeep Singh Chaudhary, Sh. Gurdeep Singh and Sh. B.S. Sabharwal Page No. 1/23 were arraigned as accused. Whereas, in case FIR No. 301/2003, PS Tilak Marg, Sh. Hardeep Singh Chaudhary, Sh. Hardeep Singh Kang and Sh. Harvinder Singh were arraigned as accused. All these FIRs were registered at the instance of Sh. O.P Bhambri, the then General Manager, Civil Services Club of India ( hereinafter referred to as CSOI). All the accused have contested the charge and pressed for their discharged.
3. As per the charge sheet in case FIR No. 184/2003, PS Tilak Nagar, Sh. Manoj Gulati was granted the membership (M No 3239) of CSOI by giving incorrect information on the membership form stating that he was a Commandant in BSF and posted at Jammu. His known address as found out from telephone No 197 is Flat No 78C, DDA Flat, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi-110007 (Telephone No. 23652805). The membership of Sh. Manoj Gulati was terminated on January 01, 2002 on account of non-payment of outstanding dues of Rs 2175/-. Along-with the complaint, the complainant forwarded the documents:
(i) Application form for membership duly filled and signed by Sh. Manoj Gulati showing against his designation in column No. 2 as Commandant BSF,
(ii) Outstation membership card (duplicate) with photograph and signature of Sh. Manoj Gulati,
(iii) Letter from BSF Headquarters (confidential section) stating that there is no Commandant by the name of Sh. Manoj Gulati serving in BSF, and
(iv) Letter dated December 09, 2002 from Sh. Manoj Gulati along-with a cheque of Rs. 3500/- and membership card with a request for surrendering his membership.
The eligibility conditions for the membership of CSOI were stated to be:
All serving and retired officers of the grade of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the pay scale of Rs. 12,000-375-16500/- p.m and above from All India Services and Group 'A' Officers of equivalent status working under the Page No. 2/23 Central Government and those on deputation to PSUs and Autonomous Institutions are eligible to be Members of the CSOI.
Upon the complaint, FIR was registered under section 419/420/120B IPC. After, completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed under section 419/420/120B IPC.
4. As per the charge sheet in case FIR No. 282/2003, a complaint was made by Sh. O.P Bhambri, the then General Manager of CSOI to the effect that Sh. K K Sehgal (M. No. 3022), (ii) Sh. Gurdeep Singh (M. No. 2508) (iii) Sh. Gurdeep Singh Mamik (M.No. 2062) were granted membership of CSOI on the basis of false information given by them on the membership forms stating that they were officers from BSF. However, on verification from BSF, it has been clarified vide better No. A-60012/1/2001-Pers/BSF/Vol.-IV/35655 dated June 17, 2003 that the above persons have never been in the service of BSF. The eligibility conditions for the membership of CSOI were stated to be:
All serving and retired officers of the grade of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the pay scale of Rs. 12,000-375-16500/- p.m and above from All India Services and Group 'A' Officers of equivalent status working under the Central Government and those on deputation to PSUs and Autonomous Institutions are eligible to be Members of the CSOI.
Upon the complaint, FIR was registered under section 419/420/120B IPC. After, completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed under section 419/420/120B IPC.
5. As per the charge sheet in case FIR No. 301/2003, a complaint was made by Sh. O.P Bhambri, the then General Manager of CSOI to the effect that Sh. Harjit Singh (M. No. Page No. 3/23 2873) and Sh. Harvinder Singh (M No. 3238) have obtained membership of CSOI fraudulently. The above persons were granted membership of CSOI on the basis of false information given by them on the membership forms stating that they were officers from BSF, however, on verification from BSF, it has been clarified vide BSF letter No. A-60012/1/2001-Pers./BSF/Vol No552 dated June 27, 2003 that the above persons have never been in the service of BSF. The eligibility conditions for the membership of CSOI were stated to be:
All serving and retired officers of the grade of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the pay scale of Rs. 12,000-375-16500/- p.m and above from All India Services and Group 'A' Officers of equivalent status working under the Central Government and those on deputation to PSUs and Autonomous Institutions are eligible to be Members of the CSOI.
Upon the complaint, FIR was registered under section 419/420/120B IPC. After, completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed under section 419/420/120B IPC.
6. As per the charge sheet in case FIR No. 184/2003, PS Tilak Marg, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that Sh. Hardeep Singh Chaudhary was a retired Deputy Commandant from BSF but he impersonated as Commandant, BSF and on that basis, he was given membership No. 1986. It was also revealed that he was also issued an application form from Punjab & Sindh Bank for issuance of credit card in his name and in this form, he again impersonated himself as DIG, BSF/MHA, posted at BSF, SIS, New Delhi and on this representation, he was issued credit card No. 5414 4550 0128 4202. Against the accused Ajay Hasija, it was revealed during the Page No. 4/23 investigation that he was introduced to Sh. V.K. Shukla, who was an auto parts businessman, by his friend co-accused Sanjeev Karan Singh. It is revealed that at the instance of Sh. V.K Shukla, Sh. Ajay Hasija signed the application form in which he impersonated himself as an IAS officer posted as District Collector, Assam and upon this representation, he was issued membership No. 3150. It is further revealed that he was also issued an application form from Punjab & Sindh Bank for issuance of credit card in his name and in this form, he again impersonated himself as DC, West Bengal, Calcutta and accordingly, he was issued credit card No. 5414 4550 0135 8600. Against the accused Sanjeev Karan Singh, it was revealed during the investigation that he was running an auto parts shop and came in contact with Sh. V.K Shukla at his shop, where he happened to have come for repair of his car. It was found that Sh. V.K Shukla offered him the membership of CSOI and accordingly, Sh. V.K Shukla arranged application form and obtained signatures of Sh. Sanjev Karan Singh on blank forms and accordingly, Sh. Sanjeev Karan Singh became a member of CSOI by impersonating himself as Commandant, CISF and he issued membership No. 3049. It is further revealed that he was also issued an application form from Punjab & Sindh Bank for issuance of credit card in his name and in this form, he again impersonated himself as Commandant, CISF/CRPF and on this representation, he was issued credit card No. 5414 4550 0158 8206. The handwriting and signatures were also sent to the forensic expert who confirmed the handwriting and signatures of the accused.
7. As per charge sheet in case FIR No. 282/2003, PS Tilak Marg, during the course of investigation, it was found out Page No. 5/23 that Sh. Gurdeep Singh, who was carrying on the business of leather items export, in one of social gatherings, came in contact with Sh. H.S. Chaudhary and thereafter, they met frequently and Sh. H.S Chaudhary offered him the membership of CSOI for a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to which he agreed, and Sh. H.S Chaudhary got the application form signed from him and asked Sh. Gurdeep Singh to provide his particulars on a separate sheet of paper and accordingly, Sh. Gurdeep Singh was issued membership No. 2508. It was also revealed that he was also issued an application form from Punjab & Sindh Bank for issuance of credit card in his name and in this form, he again did not provide correct particulars and on this representation, he was issued credit card No. 5414 4550 0139 0900. Against Sh. B.S. Sabharwal, it is revealed during the investigation that he was into furniture business and he came in contact with Sh. H.S. Chaudhary through Sh. Gurdeep Singh and thereafter, they met frequently. It is alleged that in of such meeting, Sh. H.S Chaudhary offered him the membership of CSOI for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to which he agreed. Thereafter, Sh. H.S Chaudhary got the application form signed from Sh. B.S. Sabharwal and accordingly, he was issued membership No. 1987. It was also revealed that he was also issued an application form from Punjab & Sindh Bank for issuance of credit card in his name and in this form, he again did not mention his true particulars and on this representation, he was issued credit card No. 5414 4550 0138 2907. Additionaly, it is alleged that the signatures of Sh. B.S. Sabharwal on the application form of CSOI and the application form for credit card were significantly different from each other and it was also revealed that the signatures of Sh. B.S. Sabharwal were forged Page No. 6/23 for getting his membership renewed. The handwriting and signatures were also sent to the forensic expert who confirmed the handwriting and signatures of the accused. The findings of the investigating officers against Sh. H.S Chaudhary were similar in case FIR No. 184/2003, PS Tilak Marg.
8. As per the charge sheet in case FIR No. 301/2003, PS Tilak Marg, it was found during the investigation against accused Sh. Harjeet Singh that he was a retired as Wing Commander from Directorate of Planning, Air Force (HQ) as Deputy Director in 1992. Thereafter, he joined Jet Airways as Pilot and worked there till 1996 and at the time of the present FIR, he was working as a pilot with Sahara Airlines. It is alleged that in one of the flights, he came in contact with Sh. H.S. Chaudhary who introduced himself as retired Commandant from BSF and offered him the membership of CSOI to which Sh. Harjeet Singh agreed. It is alleged that Sh. Harjeet Singh along- with Sh. H.S Chaudhary went to CSOI and filled the application form in his own handwriting and impersonated himself as Commandant BSF. It was also revealed that he was also issued an application form from Punjab & Sindh Bank for issuance of credit card in his name and in this form, he again did not mention his true particulars by showing himself as Govt. servant, and on this representation, he was issued credit card No. 5414 4550 0134 2802. Against Sh. Harvinder Singh, it is alleged that he was running a shop in the name of Gujranwala Jewellers at Chandni Chowk and that he allegedly paid Rs. 25,000/- plus Rs. 4,300/- for obtaining the membership. It is alleged that in his application form he impersonated himself as Commandant BSF. It is further alleged that he also applied for credit card from Punjab & Sindh Page No. 7/23 Bank, impersonating as Commandant, BSF/MHA, posted at Group Centre, Shilong and upon this representation, he was issued credit card bearing No. 5414 4550 0136 4012. The handwriting and signatures were also sent to the forensic expert who confirmed the handwriting and signatures of the accused. The findings of the investigating officers against Sh. H.S Chaudhary were similar in case FIR No. 184/2003, PS Tilak Marg.
9. At this juncture, it would not be out of place to mention that prior to all the above these FIRs, an FIR No. 79/2003 PS Mayapuri (later transferred to PS Crime Branch) was registered against Sh. O.P Bhambri and Sh. V.K. Shukla at the instance of Sh. Manoj Gulati (since deceased). It was alleged in the said FIR that somewhere in the month of May-June, 1999, Mr. V. K. Shukla approached Sh. Manoj Gulati in Noida, where Sh. Manoj Gulati was shooting for his TV serial. Mr. Shukla expressed his keen desire to work with him in his serial and also took his contact number. After about 10 days, Mr. Shukla contacted him and invited him for a cup of tea at a bungalow which appeared to be that of a Member of Parliament. During the conversation, he asked the Sh. Manoj Gulati if he was interested in becoming a member of CSOI. Sh. Manoj Gulati replied in affirmative and Mr. Shukla telephoned one Mr. Bhambri and inquired about availability of membership for CSOI. On getting a positive reply from Mr. Bhambri, he took Sh. Manoj Gulati to the club, where Mr. Shukla introduced him to Mr Bhambri who introduced himself as a Retired Wing Commander. Mr. Bhambri told them that the membership was available for the persons of public importance and will cost Rs. 4300/- by cheque or draft Page No. 8/23 plus Rs 25,000/- in cash. He also requested for the names of his friends who were interested in obtaining the membership of CSOI. After 4-5 days, he again received a call from Mr. Shukla who told him that it was the right time since the building was being constructed and the CSOI needed funds. At that time, Sh. Manoj Gulati was in the office of his friend namely Mr. Ramesh Nambiar who inquired from him about the call and he explained all to him. On this, Mr. Nambiar also got interested in the membership and also proposed the same to one another friend namely Mr. Harvinder Singh who was also sitting there and got interested. The complainant received another call from Mr. Shukla who informed him that the cheque or draft of Rs. 4300/- was to be made in favour of CSOI and building fund was to be paid in cash. After a few days, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- in cash was given for building fund to Sh. O.P. Bhambri at Sanjay Nagar and the blank forms duly signed by both of them were handed over to him. Again after a few days, all three of them handed over the cheques and signed forms to Mr. Shukla outside DD Motors. After about a week, he received a call from Mr. Bambari that they had been enrolled as Members in CSOI and identity cards were ready. They collected the I-cards and started using the facilities of CSOI without being aware of what had been filled in the membership forms as they were not informed nor were given copy of forms. It is alleged that in December, 2001 Mr. Bhambri asked Sh. Manoj Gulati to surrender his membership for non depositing of Rs. 25,000/- for building fund and he wanted to close the issue before facing any internal inquiry as he was reduced to GM from Executive Secretary. Sh. Manoj Gulati however refused to do the same. Thereafter, Mr. Bhambri Page No. 9/23 threatened him of dire consequences. Ultimately, on 09.12.2002, he signed the surrender letter presented by Mr. Bhambri. Sh. Manoj Gulati also informed his friend Mr. Nambiar and took him to the club on 12.12.2002 as per the directions of Mr. Bhambri. They were shocked when it was revealed that the accused had cheated many more persons like them and duped with their money in the name of building fund. It is stated that Mr. Bhambri thereafter desired all of them to surrender their membership and at that point, he also offered to return their money, however, everybody refused. It has been alleged that Sh. V.K Shukla in connivance with Mr. Bhambri has cheated Sh. Manoj Gulati and his friends thereby extorting money from them on misrepresentations. The investigating agency filed cancellation report after the investigation, however, the same was not accepted and vide order dated 21.09.2013, further investigation was ordered by Ld. Predecessor. However, after completion of further investigation, cancellation report was filed again and the same is pending consideration along-with FIRs No. 184/2003, 282/2003 and 301/2003, PS Tilak Marg.
10. Submissions heard. Record perused.
11. Before averting to the merits of the case, it is appropriate to take a glance at the law on charge and discharge. In the celebrated judgment of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., 1979 2 SCR 229, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"The words 'not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post-office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of Page No. 10/23 the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really his function after the trial starts. At the stage of section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex-facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.
xxxxx (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
(2) Whether the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly .explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon tho facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused . (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post B Office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however do,s not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter G and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial".
12. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, 1978 1 SCR 257:
"Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter 1emains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the 'initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary Page No. 11/23 is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor pro poses to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebut ted by the defence evidence; if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial".
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sajjan Kumar Vs. C.B.I., (2010) 9 SCC 368, held that at the time of framing of charge, the Court has to look at all the material placed before it and determine whether a prima facie case is made out or not, and the Court is not required to consider the evidentiary value of the evidence. The observations of the apex Court read as under:
"21. On consideration of the authorities about scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face Page No. 12/23 value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
14. First of all, the prosecution collected selective material and did not produce all the necessary evidences which are crucial for the adjudication of the case. The application forms on which reliance has been placed by the investigating agency for prosecution of the accused persons itself show that they were screened by a screening officer from CSOI. From all these forms of the accused, it is revealed that they were declared eligible by the screening officer. In almost all these forms, the remarks of screening officer were signed by Sh. O.P Bhambri and only few do not bear any signatures of screening officer. The application form of Sh. Manoj Gulati, Sh. Hardeep Singh Chaudhary, Sanjeev Karan Singh, Ajay Hasija, Narender Pal Singh, K.K Sehgal, Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Gurdeep Singh Mamik and Harvinder Singh were cross verified by Sh. O.P Bhambri as screening officer on behalf of CSOI as he was Executive Secretary at that point of time. There is no investigation conducted as to how the eligibility of these candidates were accepted and how they were declared as eligible candidates for membership of the club. No efforts were made to ascertain the supporting documents, if any, provided along-with the application forms. The investigating officer has not obtained the entire record or file pertaining to the membership of each of the accused. The individual membership file/record would have Page No. 13/23 thrown light on the circumstances in which the membership was granted, the documents collected and verification conducted. However, there is no whisper about these facts in the charge sheet. It is to be remembered that it was not that the accused made misrepresentations to the club and upon verification, the club sought criminal prosecution of the accused. The accused were granted membership and they enjoyed the same for a considerable period of time also, but all of a sudden, one fine day, a complaint was made by the club about the membership of the club having been obtained by the accused fraudulently, without mentioning anything as to how the accused were successful in securing the membership and how the fraud was discovered at a later stage only. It is relevant to note that one cannot obtain the membership of the club by filling up the application form simplicitor. The application forms itself suggest that there was a verification procedure and all these accused were accepted as member after the verification on behalf of the club. Further, the register containing the record of proceedings of the executive committee of the club which was seized by the IO, deliberations used to be made by the executive committee of the club before granting membership to a person. However, all the crucial and necessary facts have not been brought before the court.
15. Further, memorandum of the club dated 18.05.1999 clearly speaks of preparation of waiting list due to demands from Govt, Officers for as the membership of the club was closed down earlier due to space constraints. The memorandum provided for application for getting enlisted in the waiting list by the all India and Group A officer of Central Govt and those on Page No. 14/23 deputation to PSUs and autonomous institutions, which were located in Delhi, on payment of Rs. 20/- along-with Rs. 3,000/- w.e.f 15.07.1999. This document is undisputed and part of charge sheet in FIR No. 184/2003. Thus, as on 18.05.1999, the club was not accepting membership of the club and any desirous eligible candidate would have to wait for grant of the membership as the seniority in the waiting list. The eligibility of the club was also restricted to the Delhi and no outstation Govt. Officer could obtain the membership. It is relevant to note that upon a notice under section 91 Cr.P.C issued by the investigating officer, reply dated 16.04.2003 was issued by the complainant Sh. O.P Bhambri on behalf of the club that there was no waiting list and the waiting list was prepared only w.e.f 15.07.1999. However, this submission of Sh. O.P Bhambri was not correct as even before 18.05.1999, the club was not accepting membership into the club. Further, the investigating officer has also seized a waiting list register which is also evidence of the fact that there used to be a waiting list prepared at the relevant time and no one, much less the accused persons herein, would have gotten the membership by circumventing the waiting list and also of the eligibility criteria. Further, the page No. 85, 90, 122, 140, 168 of the register having record of the club also mentions about the existence of waiting list in 1999. The investigating agency though seized the memorandum dated 18.05.1999 and the waiting list register of the year 2001-02 but forgot to investigate as to how the accused jumped the waiting list and the elgibility and secure the membership straight away. As already observed above, almost all the application forms of the accused were verified by Sh. O.P Bhambri himself. There are reasonable Page No. 15/23 ground to suspect fabrication and manipulation of records of CSOI in which the role of Sh. O.P Bhambri appears to be prominent. In these circumstances, the complainant Sh. O.P Bhambri was much to explain than the accused herein, but the investigating agency seems to have forgotten the actual purpose of the investigation i.e. to unravel the truth and not to favour the complainant or be biased against the accused only.
16. Further, page No.33 of the record register seized by the investigating officer shows that there used to be deliberation by the executive committee before grant of membership in certain case, viz., where the eligibility is not clear etc. However, subsequent record suggest that all the due process in the grant of membership was circumvented and the membership was granted at the drop of the hat. Page No. 53 of the register shows that forms from serial No. 541 to 560 were issued to one person namely Sh. Roop Singh. Page No. 59 also records another such incident where forms No. 581 to 586 were issued to one person. Similarly, form No. 587, 588 to 607, 608, 609 and 630 were issued in such manner only. It is specifically recorded therein that form No. 630 was issued to Sh. Bhambri only. However, not a single inquiry was made by the investigating officer from the complainant in this regard. It is also interesting to note that at page No. 75, it is recorded that on 07.07.1999 forms No. 797 to 806 were issued but to whom they were issued, nothing has been mentioned. This register also specifically mentions about the waiting list. Page No. 168 shows that somewhere in December, 1999, there a waiting list of about 356 but despite the fact that membership was allotted in an indiscriminate manner and the membership reached to 2300 members. What was going on? was Page No. 16/23 something needed to be asked by the investigating agency. All the above suggests that there were malpractices writ large in allotting the membership of the club by the club and the answer to the fraudulent allotment of the membership of the club did not lie solely in the application forms of some of the persons who are arraigned as an accused herein.
17. It is submitted on behalf of accused Hardeep Singh Chowdhary that he was retired from BSF as Deputy Commandant having basic pay of Rs 14,500 at the time of his retirement and at the time of grant of the membership i.e. in September 1998, his basic pay was Rs 13,250, which was within the eligibility criteria of the club. The relevant salary slips are filed on record. However, the investigating officer did not carry out any independent verification in this regard and merely acted on the verification report supplied by the complainant. Obviously, the verification report supplied by the complainant was to the effect whether Sh. Hardeep Singh Chowdhary was commandant in BSF or not, and not on the aspect whether he satisfied the eligibility criteria. Further, as per the eligibility criteria of the club, even retired Group A officers of Central Govt. were eligible for membership of the club. It is pertinent to mention that rank of the government officer was not important since the candidate was only required to be Group A officer of the Central Government. If the accused Hardeep Singh Chowdhary was eligible on the date of his induction into the club as a member being a Central Government Group A officer, any discrepancy in his rank was not material. Similarly, it is submitted on behalf of accused Harjit Singh Kang who was retired as Wing Commander from Directorate of Planning Air Page No. 17/23 Force (HQ) as Deputy Director in year 1992. Apparently, accused Harjit Singh was also satisfying the eligibility criteria as he was the retired Govt. Officer from Central Govt. in the Group A category having the requisite basic pay. The investigation is also silent upon this aspect as to whether accused Harjit Singh was otherwise satisfying the eligibility criteria for the grant of membership of the club. Further, Sh. Hardeep Singh Chowdhary has been made an accused on the same complaint in all the three FIRs i.e. 184/2003, 282/2003 and 301/2003, PS Tilak Marg, in violation of section 300 Cr.P.C. It is necessary to mention herein that upon all the complaints in these three FIRs, a common investigation was conducted and all the evidences were collected only in FIR No. 184/2003 PS Tilak Marg. Therefore, Sh. Hardeep Singh Chowdhary should not have been made an accused in all the three FIRs since he cannot be prosecuted for the same offence more than once.
18. Another, significant feature of the investigation is required to be highlighted. In case FIR No. 282/2003, in addition to the material already collected in case FIR No. 184/2003, there are seizure memos of the documents, letters relied upon by the prosecution and the report of the handwriting expert are post dated to the date on which the chargesheet was prepared. The chargesheet in case FIR No. 282/2003 was prepared on 02.06.2004 but relies upon letter dated 07.06.2004 issued by DG BSF, letter dated 08.06.2004 issued by CPWD, letter dated 03.06.2004 issued by Senior Manager, Punjab & Sindh Bank, seizure memo dated 03.06.2004 and the handwriting expert's report dated 22.09.2004. It is further pertinent to mention that the handwriting on the expert's report, the date of the receipt of the Page No. 18/23 case has been mentioned to be 31.08.2004 and the said report was prepared on 22.09.2004 and the said report was filed in the Court on 10.01.2005. It is interesting to note that in the chargesheet which was prepared on 02.06.2004 and filed in the Court on 01.07.2004 contains the findings of the handwriting expert which were not even available on the date when the chargesheet was prepared and filed in the Court. It clearly shows that the investigation conducted was only an eyewash to save the real culprits who have manipulated the records of the club and allotted membership of the club fraudulently by making certain chosen individuals as accused by covering up the larger conspiracy. It appears that the findings of the investigating officer were a foregone conclusion without even considering the relevant material and the attending circumstances.
19. Whereas, signatures on the application forms of the respective applicants were examined by the handwriting expert, surprisingly no opinion was given about the handwriting in which the particulars on the application forms were filled. In case of accused Sanjeev Karan Singh, his application form was typed written but no opinion on his application for credit card was sought. Similar is the case of accused Ajay Hasija. In case of accused Harvinder Singh, the original application form was not seized and there is no explanation given on chargesheet for non availability of the original application form. It is another instance of the investigating agency picking and choosing persons who are made accused and who were exonerated after the investigation. Sh. Ramesh Nambiar was not made an accused as his original application form was not traceable but Sh. Harvinder Singh was made an accused despite his original application form Page No. 19/23 was not brought on record.
20. The case of accused Harvinder Singh is perculiar and different from other accused. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that he was granted membership under the category of persons of public importance. The complainant as well as the prosecution made an impression that no such category for induction of persons as member of the club existed. It is pertinent to mention that on 09.01.2014, upon being summoned, the then General Manager of the club, Sh. Rajinder appeared and admitted that there was a category of 'Persons of Public Importance'. Further, the original application form of the accused Harvinder Singh was brought on record. On his identity card, except the membership number, no designation was mentioned. It is further interesting to note that the membership of accused Harvinder Singh into the club was restored in the year 2010 which was admitted on behalf of the club as recorded in the order dated 09.01.2014. If the accused Harvinder Singh fraudulently obtained membership and if he was not granted the membership under the category of 'Persons of Public Importance' then how and under what category, accused Harvinder Singh was given the membership which was restored in the year 2010. As already observed above, in view of the memorandum dated 18.05.1999, the outstation candidates could not have been inducted as member into the club. The accused Harvinder Singh was having the address of Amritsar in his application form and it requires an explanation from the complainant and from the club as to how his membership was accepted at the first instance. The case of accused Harvinder Singh stands on a better footing than other accused persons. Whereas, in the case of other accused, it can be Page No. 20/23 said that even though there was misrepresentations as per the information given in the application form but the club was not deceived as there was cross verification and due process, in case of the accused Harvinder Singh the fact that his membership was restored by the club in the year 2010 despite being aware of the present proceedings, the present prosecution against him are groundless and nothing but an abuse of process of law.
21. The prosecution has alleged commission of offences under section 419 and 420 IPC. For the offence of cheating to be attracted, it is necessary that there should be a fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, the person so deceived is induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and the act or omission should be one which causes or likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. Causing mere deception without any delivery of property or harm or damage to property or reputation etc., could not amount to cheating. Reliance in this regard can be had to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Jas Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 1811 . Similar view was taken in Kanumukkala Krishnamurthy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 333. In the present case, the evidence which has been collected by the investigating agency is only with respect to the representations made by the accused persons in the application forms. Whether the club was actually deceived and any loss or damage has been suffered by the club have not been prima facie established. As already observed above, the Page No. 21/23 application forms were subjected to due process and screening and only after, the screening by the club, the applicants were accepted as members. There is no evidence brought on record which would suggest that the club was deceived by the representations made by the accused persons even after the due process. There is also no evidence whether any loss or damage has been caused to the club. If the essengtial ingredients of section 415 IPC are not attracted in the present case then sections 419 and 420 IPC would not apply.
22. Further, the prosecution has also alleged criminal conspiracy under section 120B IPC against the accused persons. However, except bald statements, there is evidence brought on record to suggest that the accused persons conspired with each other. Rather, the record suggests that a conspiracy existed inside the club in pursuance of which membership of the club was allotted to several persons by keeping all the rules and regulations of the club aside. The prosecution story is full of contradictions and loop holes. It appears that to cover up the misdeeds and corrupt practices prevalent in the club and of the complainant Sh. O.P Bhambri, the prosecution in these three FIRs were initiated. The materials produced, rather corroborating the story of the prosecution, supports the allegations made in the case FIR No. 79/2003, PS Crime Branch against the complainant Sh. O.P Bhambri.
23. Therefore, after a thoughtful consideration of the material produced by the prosecution, no prima facie case sufficient for framing charges against the accused Hardeep Singh Chowdhary, Ajay Hasija, Sanjeev Karan Singh, Gurdeep Singh, B.S. Sabharwal, Harjit Singh Kang and Harvinder Singh under Page No. 22/23 section 419/420/120B IPC are made out and accordingly, all these accused persons are discharged from the present case.
Bail bonds, if any, be cancelled. Surety, if any, be discharged. Original documents, if any, be returned to the rightful claimant.
File be consigned to record room. Digitally
signed by
PRANAV
PRANAV JOSHI
JOSHI Date:
2025.04.25
17:10:30
+0530
(PRANAV JOSHI)
ACJM-01/PHC/NDD
25.04.2025
Page No. 23/23