Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ms. Shubha Trimurthy vs State Of Haryana on 20 April, 2009
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla
Crl.Misc.No.M-33020 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision: 20.4.2009
Crl.Misc.No.M-33020 of 2008
Ms. Shubha Trimurthy .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana ....Respondent
....
Crl.Misc.No.M-1588 of 2009 Kumar Subramaniam ....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ......Respondent ...
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
****
Present : Mr. Sudershan Ranjan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana for the State.
Mr. B.M. Rastogi, Advocate for the complainant.
....
RAJIVE BHALLA, J This order shall dispose of Crl.Misc. Nos.M-33020 of 2008 and M-1588 of 2009, as they arise from the same FIR.
Prayer in these petitions, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are for grant of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No.658 dated 21.10.2008, registered under Sections 419,420,467,120-B IPC, at Police Station Central, Faridabad.
Radha Rani lodged the aforementioned FIR alleging that she is owner of 100 sq.yards of property bearing no.5/43 NIT Faridabad. She Crl.Misc.No.M-33020 of 2008 2 transferred 60 sq.yards to her daughter Ms.Babita. Her daughter informed her that she had presented the property documents to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi, for raising a loan of Rs.20.00 lacs. However, no loan has been granted but instead Shri Satish Tandon, Shubha Trimurthy, Poorti, Kumar Subramaniam and Manish Kumar forged a relinquishment deed of her property and got a limit of Rs.1.5 crores sanctioned, out of which they have withdrawn Rs.1.07 crores.
After registration of the FIR, the police commenced investigation. During investigation, it transpired that Ms. Babita, the complainant's daughter had approached the petitioners for help to secure a loan. For this purpose, she entrusted title documents to the petitioners. The petitioners and their co-accused prepared a relinquishment deed, created a fictitious firm named M/s Leather Creations, connived with officials of the bank and were sanctioned a loan limit of Rs.1.5 crores. The property subject matter of the relinquishment deed was pledged as security for this limit. The account was opened by Manish Kumar, an employee of Ms.Shubha Trimurthy, under the assumed name of Mahender Kumar. The address furnished in the documents was found to be incorrect and the Pan No. and voter identity card were found to be forged. The petitioners, claiming to be mere consultants, filed a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, which was dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Shubha Trimurthy is a mere consultant, who helped Ms. Babita in raising a bank loan. It is further submitted that Radha Rani, the complainant filed a collusive suit against her husband, son and daughter Smt. Babita, claiming ownership of property bearing No.5/43, NIT Faridabad. As the defendants Crl.Misc.No.M-33020 of 2008 3 therein admitted her ownership, the suit was decreed on 21.10.1987. On 10.2.1997, Radha Rani sold 60 yards of this property to her daughter Ms. Babita vide sale deed 10.2.1997. On 4.1.2008, Radhi Rani executed a relinquishment deed in favour of Ms. Babita with respect to the remaining land. Ms. Babita daughter of the complainant, prepared and pledged the registered relinquishment deed as surety for a loan advanced to M/s Leather Creations. The relinquishment deed was duly verified by the bank and an amount of Rs.19,75,000/- was credited to the account of Ms. Babita. It is further urged that observations by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad that Ms.Shubha Trimurthy is the master mind behind the fraud of Rs.1.07 crores is factually incorrect. The allegations that the document of title/relinquishment deed submitted by Ms. Babita were misused by the petitioners and their co-accused for raising a loan for a fictitious firm M/s Leather Creations is false. M/s Leather Creations is an existing firm running its business in Delhi. The loan amount was sanctioned and appropriated by this firm. It is prayed that as the petitioners have joined investigation, the order granting interim pre-arrest bail be made absolute.
As regards the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-1588 of 2009, it is argued that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and no role has been assigned to him in the alleged fraud. He has been implicated, as he is the brother of Ms. Shubha Trimurthy.
Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that Ms.Shubha Trimurthy is the kingpin of the conspiracy hatched with her brother (the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-1588 of 2008) and certain officers of the bank.
Ms.Babita may have applied for a loan but her title documents/relinquishment deed were misused by forging documents and for Crl.Misc.No.M-33020 of 2008 4 raising a loan in the name of a fictitious firm M/s Leather Creations. The bank sanctioned a limit of Rs.1.5 crores to M/s Leather Creations. The relinquishment deed was presented as a security for this limit. This account was opened by Manish Kumar, an employee of Ms. Shubha Trimurthy by describing himself as Mahender Kumar. An amount of Rs.1.07 crores was withdrawn and was shared by the accused. In order to cover their track, they deposited an amount of Rs.19,75,000/- in the account of Ms.Babita. It is further submitted that Ms.Shubha Trimurthy is also facing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation in cases pertaining to such fraudulent transactions.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the order dated 4.12.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.
A considered appraisal of the facts, appears to prima facie suggest an ingenuous fraud perpetuated by the petitioners in connivance with their co-accused. Ms. Babita may have approached the petitioners to help her for raising a loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Hauz Khas Branch, New Delhi but it appears that her title documents were misused by the petitioners. Though, it is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the relinquishment deed was prepared by the complainant and handed over to the bank by Ms. Babita, it is rather strange that this relinquishment deed came to be used for securing a limit sanctioned in favour of M/s Leather Creations, a firm that has no connection with Ms. Babita. Documents with respect to withdrawal of money are signed by Ms.Shubha Trimurthy. It is also alleged by the prosecution that the address of M/s Leather Creations, furnished to the bank, is incorrect. The Pan Card and the Income Tax Crl.Misc.No.M-33020 of 2008 5 Returns are also fictitious. Ms. Shubha Trimurthy also introduced the account holder. The final nail in the coffin is the statement of Manish Kumar, an employee of Ms.Shubha Trimurthy and a co-accused, who has been arrested by the police and has made a clean breast of the entire conspiracy. The statement of Manish Kumar, though the statement of a co- accused, makes interesting reading as he has admitted that the documents submitted by Ms. Babita were misused by the petitioners in connivance with the Manager of the bank. A bogus account was opened in the name of M/s Leather Creations and he was asked to sign as Mahender Kumar, partner. He has also stated that the petitioner opened another fictitious firm M/s Pragati Traders, where another co-accused and a friend of his, was made to sign and was shown as its proprietor. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioners are prima facie guilty of serious offences. The submission by counsel for the petitioners that the fraud was perpetuated by Ms. Babita, daughter of the complainant does not inspire confidence. It would also be necessary to mention here that Ms. Shubha Trimurthy is facing an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, with respect to 12 other complaints relating to similar allegations.
In view of what has been stated herein above and despite the fact that the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-33020 of 2008 is a lady, I am of the firm opinion that her custodial interrogation is necessary, so as to enable the police to unravel the facets of this fraud.
Dismissed.
20.4.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA)
GS JUDGE
Crl.Misc.No.M-33020 of 2008 6