Delhi High Court
Indu Kumar & Anr. vs Cbi on 12 August, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: July 27, 2010
Date of Order: August 12, 2010
+ CRL.M.C. 10/2010 & Crl.M.A.Nos. 1077/2010 & 2680/2010
% 12.08.2010
INDU KUMAR & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shyam Moorjani,
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates with Ms. Indu
Kumar
versus
CBI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Harish Gulati, Advocate with
Mr. Anindya Malhotra, Advocates for CBI
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing order of learned
Special Judge dated 11th July, 2009, whereby the learned Special Judge
dismissed an application of the petitioner for release of original title deed of
property and the photocopies of documents ceased by CBI in investigation of
RC No. ACU IX/CBI/2008/04.
2. The applicant is a company engaged in sale and purchase of immovable
properties. The accused in this case was booked for accumulating huge assets
disproportionate to his income and it was found by CBI that the accused was
using the name of this company to invest ill-gotten money. The company was
being run by the wife of accused. Documents showing investments by the
company, sources of income of the company and other features of the
company were seized by the CBI and it was found by CBI that the company
was existing only on papers with fictitious shareholders whose addresses were
false.
3. It was submitted by the respondent that earlier also photocopies of
some shares were supplied to the applicant and the applicant, on the basis of
those photocopies, sold the shares to third parties. Learned Special Judge
observed that since the investigation was in respect of disproportionate assets
and the company was being used just to invest the ill-gotten money, it would
not be appropriate to release the photocopies of documents and dismissed
the application.
4. The investigation done by CBI has revealed that the company in
question was existing on papers only. It was being run by the wife of accused
and it was being used as a front for investment of ill-gotten money of her
husband. The documents pertaining to various transactions of the company
were seized by the CBI in order to establish the case of disproportionate
assets against the accused. In these circumstances, I consider that if
photocopies of documents are supplied to the applicant/company, there is
every possibility that company may try to create some further evidence or
may try to destroy some evidence. The original title deed seized by the CBI
also cannot be released in favour of the company for the said reason. It is
settled law that the Court in appropriate case can pierce the veil of the
company and can rule that the company has to be identified with the
shareholders and Directors. Since in this case some shareholders of the
company have been found fictitious and the company was being run by the
wife of accused, I consider that the Court can ignore the existence of the
company for the time being till the investigation is complete.
5. I, therefore, find no force in this petition. The petition is hereby
dismissed.
AUGUST 12 , 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
