Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi & Anr vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 4466 Del

*       HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              Crl.M.A. No. 10772/2011 in
               Bail Appl.No.1413/2009


                                           Date of Decision: 13.9.2011

       BHUPINDER PAL SINGH BAKSHI & ANR ..... Petitioners
                    Through: Mr. Sarat Chandra and Mr.
                             Sachin Chandra, Advocate
                             for the applicant.
                    versus

       STATE                                      ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, APP

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

V.K. SHALI, J.(Oral)

Crl.M.A.No.10772/2011

1. This is an application bearing No.10772/2011 filed u/s

482 Cr.P.C. seeking release of the amount settled between

the parties on 26.12.2009 through mediation. The amount is

lying deposited in this Court.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

perused the record. This was a bail application filed by two

persons, namely, Bhupender Pal Singh Bakshi and Gurkaran

Singh Bakshi. The allegations against the petitioners are that

they are Managing Director and Director respectively of M/s

Pavi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and a sister concern of which viz.

Kanak Dhara floated a scheme, according to which

investments were invited from the members of the public on

promise of huge amount of returns. One of the scheme

promised returns which were to double the money invested

with the passage of each month. For example on an

investment of Rs.71,480/-, the investor was promised a

return of Rs.1,76,00,000/- over a period of one year. On the

basis of these representations FIR No.156/2008 u/s

420/120B IPC r/w Section 3,4,5,6 of The Prize Chits and

Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, came to be

registered by Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police. While

considering the question of grant of bail to the petitioners,

they had deposited certain amount of money with the

Registrar General of this Court as they had made

representations that they are prepared to settle the claim of

the investors. During the pendency of the bail application also

it seems that the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre

in order to work out a settlement between the petitioners and

the investors. The Court after hearing the matter came to the

conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to grant of bail

but with regard to the application filed by the various groups

of claimants for the release of the amount which was lying

deposited with the Registrar General of this Court, it was

observed that the same would continue to remain deposited

and it shall be disbursed in terms of the orders passed by the

Court of competent jurisdiction. It was also observed that

the amount shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit for a period of

one year and shall be renewed after expiry of the said period,

successively. The present application is filed for the release of

an amount of Rs.2,98,000/- each to a group of nine investors

from the amount which is lying deposited with the learned

Registrar General of this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the

applicant that they have actually filed this application for

release of the amount in terms of the settlement having been

arrived at between them and the petitioners before the Delhi

High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. However,

learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed an order on 11.02.2011

directing the parties to approach the High Court or any other

competent Court for the release of the said amount. It is in

this background that the present application has been filed by

the applicant.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the applicant and have also gone through the

various orders including the order passed by the learned

Addl. Sessions Judge. The Learned Single Judge of this Court

vide order dated 29.04.2010 has specifically directed that the

amount which is lying with the Registrar General of this Court

shall be disbursed to such of the parties on the directions of

the competent Court. The competent Court, in my view,

would be the Court where the trial in respect of the FIR in

question is pending or is competent to hold or alternatively

appropriate civil Court. Admittedly, Learned Single Judge of

this Court in his order dated 29.04.2010 has observed that

the tentacles of cheating and fraud which has been

committed by the petitioners has great ramifications. It has

been prima facie assessed to the extent of Rs.120 crores. If

that be the financial implication of the amount cheated then

obviously there must be thousands of investors whose

investment must have been blocked and the Court cannot be

a party to a situation where the investors who are not aware

of the proceedings against the present petitioners are put to

a difficult position of not getting even a single penny in

comparison to persons who are aware of the proceedings and

the deposit made by the petitioners in the High Court and

thereby approach the High Court for release of the money.

This is notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have

arrived at a settlement with the applicants who are stated to

be nine in numbers. In case a settlement had been arrived at

between the petitioners and the applicants it is open to the

applicants to recover the money from the petitioners from the

amount other than that which has been deposited in the

Registry of the High Court. So far as the amount which has

been deposited with the Registrar General of this Court, is

concerned, that cannot be released on the prayer of the

petitioners because it has become the case property and it is

the duty of the Court to ensure that all the investors who are

alleged to have invested the money with the petitioner's

company are able to, proportionately, recover their

investments.

6. Accordingly, I feel that the application for release of the

amount deposited with the Registrar General of this Court is

totally misconceived. The same is accordingly dismissed and

the applicants or petitioners are free to take such appropriate

steps in terms of the order dated 29.04.2010 as may be

deemed fit. Expression of any opinion hereinbefore is only a

prima facie view of the matter and shall not be considered as

an expression on the merits of the case.

7. Dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 mr