Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anju Gugnani vs State Of Punjab on 4 September, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-20135 of 2013
.....
Date of decision:4.9.2013
Anju Gugnani
...Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasdev Singh Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr. P.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the complainant.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.130 dated 23.10.2012 registered at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, District Kapurthala, for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for custodial interrogation. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. No offence of fraud or cheating has been committed by the petitioner. She is the owner of the Vistar Add Company and has taken the money from Matrix Infosys Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.09.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-20135 of 2013 [2] regarding the advertisement etc. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail petition and stated that keeping in view the serious nature and gravity of allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.
From the record, I find that as per the FIR, one Ajesh Gugnani husband of the present petitioner was running a Regional Centre at Kolkatta (for short - `RC') given to him by Punjab Technical University (for short - `PTU'). As per Memorandum of Understanding signed between Ajesh Gugnani and PTU, the Learning Centres (for short - `LCs') were working under the supervision of the accused. According to the Memorandum of Understanding, the RC was only authorized to provide logistic support to the LCs and RC was no where authorized to receive any amount on behalf of the PTU from the LCs for marketing and promotion of courses without prior approval of the PTU. So many complaints have been received by the PTU on account of `1.50 Lacs, `8 Lacs, `5 Lacs, `4,20,000/- etc. which have been received by the Vistar Add Company directly and they are using the logo of the PTU. On this FIR was registered and an inquiry was got conducted.
From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner, who is running Vistar Add Company, is the wife of main accused Ajesh Gugnani and as per evidence, huge amount has been got deposited in the account of her Company, which as per the Memorandum of Understanding Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.09.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-20135 of 2013 [3] cannot be taken from the LCs. The amount is to be taken in the name of the PTU and only the PTU after deducting its share has to give the amount to the RC. In the present case, the amount has been directly taken by the petitioner as well as other co-accused and as per allegations at this stage, they have committed irregularity and fraud of a huge amount running into crores as per order of the lower Court and also as per the arguments of the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for the complainant.
The present petitioner has connived with the other co- accused. There are also allegations of conspiracy and connivance of the present petitioner with the other accused. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is necessary in the present case. Further more, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not find it to be a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.
September 4, 2013. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.09.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh