Delhi High Court
Atul Gupta vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 21 February, 2011
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 24th January, 2011
Date of Order: February 21, 2011
+ Bail Appln. No. 85/2011
% 21.02.2011
Atul Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi ...Respondent
Counsels:
Mr. S.D. Singh, Mr. Rahul Kr. Singh for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent with Insp. Ashu Girotra, EOW
Crime.
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?
ORDER
1. This application for anticipatory bail has been preferred by the
petitioner/accused who is a practicing advocate and claims to be a handicapped
person.
2. The allegations against the petitioner are that in a family matter, he was
given a power of attorney by his uncle to represent him in the High Court in CS
(OS) No.2495 of 2001. This suit was in respect of ownership rights of the
complainant and other plaintiff over immovable property in Delhi. The accused
Atul Gupta was trusted by his uncle living in U.P. and gave him power of attorney,
since he was an advocate and working with a senior advocate Mr. Sharad Kumar
Bail Appln. 85/2011 Page 1 Of 3
Aggarwal. The accused got his senior Mr. Sharad Aggarwal engaged for his
uncle to contest the case. In the year 2006, the complainant received a notice
from MCD and from this notice, he learnt that the property in question was being
mutated by MCD in the name of defendants. Inquiries were made from the
accused but the accused was unable to give satisfactory answer. On this,
another advocate was engaged and it was found that the accused while acting as
a power of attorney on behalf of his uncle and relatives mixed up with other side
and prepared a false compromise deed on behalf of these relatives and prepared
an application for compromise without instructions from them and moved it in the
Court to get a compromise decree in favour of opposite party. He received drafts
for a sum of Rs.10 lac to be paid to the plaintiffs from defendants. It was averred
in the compromise that for a sum of Rs.10 lac, the plaintiffs have given up their
rights in the property while no such agreement was ever entered into nor the
accused was authorized to do so. The accused thus deprived the complainant of
the property by playing fraud mixing up with opposite party. Further investigation
revealed that the drafts received for the plaintiffs in the names of different
plaintiffs were deposited by opening forged accounts in different banks by the
accused by searching out persons of similar names. A draft for sum of Rs.2 lac in
the name of complainant Sushil Kumar was got encahsed by opening an account
in the name of some other Sushil Kumar. Similarly a draft in the name of Ravi
Kumar, another plaintiff was got encashed by opening an account in the name of
another Ravi Kumar in UCO Bank, High Court of Delhi. A draft of Rs.3 lac was
taken by the present accused in his own name although he was not the plaintiff in
the suit and he got this draft encashed. Similarly a draft in the name of Narender
Kumar Aggarwal and Avanish Kumar Aggarwal were got encahsed by opening
Bail Appln. 85/2011 Page 2 Of 3
accounts in these names through different persons. These six bank drafts, which
he got encashed, were issued by ICICI Bank, Hapur, U.P from the account of
Ashish Goel. Ashish Goel was brother in law of Pradeep Kumar, defendant.
3. Investigation further revealed that Sushil Kumar in whose name the
account was got opened for encashment of draft was a driver of Suresh Tyagi
and Suresh Tyagi was a friend of accused Atul Gupta. Similarly, the draft in the
name of Ravi Kumar was got encashed by opening an account in the name of
Ravi Kumar, a canteen boy in Delhi High Court canteen. The draft of Rs.1.5 lac
issued in the name of A.R. Gupta complainant was got credited by the accused
Atul Gupta in his own name since he was having similar name as A.R. Gupta. In
this manner, drafts of Rs.10 lac shown as compromise amount were got
encashed by the accused Atul Gupta himself through different persons.
4. It is thus prima facie apparent that applicant/ accused Atul Gupta, an
advocate, deliberately indulged into a large scale forgery and cheating. He
deprived the complainant of his rights in the property by misusing the trust of the
complainant and by playing fraud upon the complainant and he indulged into
forgery and got the forged accounts opened in different names finding different
persons known to him and got encahsed drafts. The entire conspiracy entered
into by this accused has to be unearthed. I consider that this conspiracy can be
unearthed only by his custodial interrogation. The accused/ petitioner is not
entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. The bail application is hereby dismissed.
February 21, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd
Bail Appln. 85/2011 Page 3 Of 3
