Delhi High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs State & Ors on 4 March, 2013
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 4th March, 2013
+ W.P.(CRL) 868/2012
KULDEEP SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.S. Butalia, Advocate
Versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Dayan Krishnan, Addl. Standing
Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Petitioner invokes inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for transfer of the investigation
of the case FIR No.345/2006 under Sections 420/406 IPC registered at
Police Station Tilak Nagar to some other independent agency, like CBI.
2. In nutshell, the case of the Petitioner, who is the complainant in the
earlier said FIR, is that the Petitioner was carrying on the business of
insurance and a financial advisor in his office at L-2/103, New Mahavir
Nagar, New Delhi. Mr. Amarjit Singh Chatwal, Harprit Singh Jolly @
Rajinder Singh Jolly @ Harman Gill and Paramjit Singh came to his
(Petitioner's) office on 15.05.2003 and offered him to become a sub-
agent of accused Amarjit Singh Chatwal who is an agent of PNB Housing
Finance Ltd. Since the proposal given by the earlier said Amarjit Singh
Chatwal and others appeared to be attractive, the Petitioner became the
sub-agent of Amarjit Singh Chatwal of PNB Housing Finance Ltd. The
Petitioner referred 8-9 cases of grant of loan to accused Amarjit Singh
Chatwal and Rajinder Singh Jolly in his capacity as sub-agent of PNB
Housing Finance Ltd. from June, 2003 to January, 2004. However, in
none of the cases, the loan got sanctioned from PNB Housing Finance
Ltd. by the accused. The Petitioner, therefore, requested Amarjit Singh
Chatwal and Rajinder Singh Jolly to refund the advance paid to them in
respect of the earlier said 8/9 business transactions. They, however,
assured the Petitioner that they would visit his office and discuss the
matter.
3. The accused persons later on informed him that they were running a
finance company in the name and style of Credit India Ltd. in which
Navprit Kaur Chatwal and Ms. Simran, wife and daughter respectively of
Amarjit Singh Chatwal were also the directors. According to the
Petitioner, he processed a loan transaction with M/s Mohan Gold Water
Breweries Ltd.(M/s Mohan Gold) with Credit India Ltd. However, the
loan was not granted, on the other hand, certain amounts which were paid
by M/s Mohan Gold as process charge, etc. were misappropriated and
M/s Mohan Gold were cheated by the accused persons. The Petitioner
was also cheated as, though the amount received from M/s Mohan Gold
was credited in his (Petitioner's) account and was withdrawn by him and
paid to the accused, the Petitioner was asked to give certain cheques to
M/s Mohan Gold.
4. The Petitioner's grievance is that the accused persons are very influential
and the local police, particularly Inspector Raman Lamba, IO of the case
has not carried out the investigation of the case fairly and properly.
Rather, the investigation proceeded so as to save the accused persons.
Referring to the status report filed by Inspector Raman Lamba and the
orders dated 18.02.2012 and 31.03.2012 passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate(M.M.), the learned counsel for the Petitioner
urges that in spite of repeated reminders by the learned 'MM', the local
police did not carry out the investigation properly. The Petitioner could
not even trace the persons who were running M/s. Credit India Ltd. in
spite of the fact that certain advertisements etc. purported to have been
issued by the accused persons were produced before the IO. The learned
counsel for the Petitioner contends that although the learned Additional
Standing Counsel urges that the investigation of the case has already been
transferred to DIU, but still the status report has been filed by Inspector
Raman Lamba who was the previous IO.
5. I have perused the orders passed by the learned M.M., particularly orders
dated 18.02.2012 and 31.03.2013. To say the least, it is apparent that the
local police was not interested to bring forth the truth. So much so that it
could not even collect specific evidence as to who was the persons
running M/s. Credit India Ltd.
6. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
Respondents fairly concedes that this Court has ample power to order for
CBI investigation, but it can be done only in exceptional cases where the
Court finds that the State police including its specialized agencies would
be unable to carry out fair and impartial investigation. A reference in this
connection may be made to Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5
SCC 79, Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 2 SCC 200 and
Mohd. Anis v. Union of India, 1994 Supp.(1) SCC 145.
7. From the material which has been produced on the record, the fact that
Inspector Raman Lamba preferred to record the statement of the
witnesses which had already been recorded, was not interested in
collecting the material as to who were the persons behind M/s Credit
India Ltd., proceeding to state that the record of the News Agency where
M/s Credit India Ltd. had issued certain advertisements were destroyed,
the fact that in spite of the repeated reminders the investigation was not
completed and the senior officers supervising the investigation remained
dormant would compel me to transfer the investigation of this case to an
agency other than the local police. At the same time, at this stage, I do
not feel that even specialized agencies of the Delhi Police will not be in a
position to carry out fair, prompt and independent investigation.
8. In the circumstances, the investigation of the instant case FIR
No.345/2006 is ordered to be transferred to EOW Branch of Delhi Police.
It is directed that the investigation shall be carried out by an officer not
below the rank of an Inspector and shall be monitored and supervised by
an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police. The
concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police, EOW Branch shall furnish
the status report to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the West District
on 1st May, 2013 and shall submit the subsequent reports on 01.06.2013
unless otherwise directed by the concerned CMM.
9. The Petition is disposed of with above terms
10. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
11. A copy of the order shall be transmitted to the Commissioner of Police.
12. Dasti to Mr. Dayan Krishnan, the learned Additional Standing Counsel
for the Respondents.
G.P. MITTAL, J.
MARCH 04, 2013
pst
