Tejpal Singh Saathi vs State
2013 Latest Caselaw 1268 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  RESERVED ON : 7th March, 2013
                                  DECIDED ON : 14th March, 2013

+ BAIL APPLICATION NO.1768/2011 & CRL.M.A.Nos.6754/2012,
  13149/2012 & 13167/2012

       TEJPAL SINGH SAATHI                      ....Petitioner
                 Through : Mr.K.K.Sud, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Jayant
                           K.Sud, Mr.Vishal Dabas & Mr.Chirag
                           Khurana, Advocates.
                                  versus
       STATE                                            ....Respondent
                      Through :   Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
                                  Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr.Advocate for the
                                  complainant.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The petitioner has filed application for anticipatory bail in

case FIR No.144/2011 registered under Section 193/420/467/471/120B

IPC at PS EOW. Status report has been filed by the State.

2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,

Senior Counsel for the complainant and learned APP, and have examined

the record. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the dispute with the

complainant is primarily a civil dispute for which he has already filed suit

for Declaration, Partition, Injunction and Rendition of accounts vide CS

(OS) No.417/2010 which is pending in this Court. The complainant has

claimed 1/7th share in properties left behind by Late Sh.Mohinder Singh

Saathi who expired intestate on 26.09.2008. On 11.05.1999, a Deed of

Family Settlement was executed between the parties which was never

challenged by the complainant. The complainant has no right, title or

interest in the properties left by deceased Mohinder Singh Saathi after the

settlement deed. The allegations in the complaint are false and fabricated.

The FIR has been registered to put pressure upon the complainant.

Attempt has been made to convert civil remedy into criminal one. It is

further argued that the petitioner has joined the investigation many times

and custodial interrogation is not required at all. Reliance has been placed

on, 'Sharad Kumar Aggarwal vs. State', 194 (2012) DLT 489; 'Monika

Singh vs. State', Bail Application No.2492/2009 & 'Romila & Anr. Vs.

State & Ors.', 2003 (69) DRJ 255 (DB).

3. Learned APP and learned Senior Counsel for the complainant

argued that the investigation is at its threshold and custodial interrogation

is required. Gift deed was forged by the petitioner and got transferred

79971 shares worth crores in his name on 10.09.2008. The Investigating

Officer has recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses and

obtained the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory which indicated

that the gift deed was forged and fabricated on 10.09.2008 whereas no

such stamp paper was issued that day. Statement of G.C.Walesha, second

attesting witness has been recorded and vide letter dated 05.09.2011 he

has requested to the EOW to make him a witness. Custodial interrogation

of the petitioner is required to recover the original Will allegedly executed

by his father; to ascertain how the document in question was forged and

fabricated and if so, by whom; to ascertain the involvement of other

persons including that of bank employees and actual modus operandi and

volume of entire fraud. It is further argued that mere filing of civil suit by

the complainant against the petitioner does not negative criminal liability

and both actions can be simultaneously maintained. 'Dilip Sudhakar

Pendse vs. State of NCT of Delhi', Crl.M.(M).No.293/2003; 'Homi

Rajvansh vs. CBI', 2012 (1) JCC 65; 'Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar

& anr.', 2012 (4) LRC 63 SC; 'Deepa Tracy vs. State (NCT of Delhi)',

2003 (2) JCC 625 & 'Maruti Nivrutti Navale vs. State of Maharashtra &

anr.', 2012 IV AD (CLI.) SC 597 were relied.

4. Civil suit CS (OS) No.417/2010 for Declaration, Partition,

Injunction and Rendition of accounts was filed by the complainant- Gurjit

Singh Saathi against the petitioner Tejpal Singh and M/s. Mag Filters and

Equipments Pvt. Ltd. in February, 2010. The petitioner filed written

statement in the said suit. Vide order dated 09.03.2010 the parties were

directed to appear before the Joint Registrar on 25.05.2010 for admission/

denial of documents. None of the parties placed on record orders in the

said civil proceedings subsequent to that. Apparently, the complainant

was not granted any interim relief though he had moved an application

under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. The petitioner has

filed on record photocopy of registered Deed of Family Settlement dated

11.05.1999 in which the petitioner, complainant and their parents are

signatory. The said family settlement was never challenged in any

proceedings by the complainant. Execution of the family settlement deed

is admitted. The complainant never resiled from the terms and conditions

incorporated in the family settlement. It is stated that the said family

settlement was acted upon between the parties including the complainant.

5. On 05.08.2011, the complainant lodged a complaint to DCP

to register a case against the petitioner and others. Various allegations

were leveled against the petitioner for manipulating and forging

documents including gift deed dated 10.09.2008. It was alleged that on

11.05.1999 a limited family settlement deed for some of the properties

was executed. The grievance of the petitioner was that his 1/7th share in

the assets of his late father was credited by the petitioner and unauthorized

lose was caused to him. The petitioner filed application under Section 438

Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court on 29.08.2011. The Court found that

there was element of settlement and counsel for the complainant and

applicant were ready to refer the matter for Mediation. The matter was

referred to Mediation Cell and interim protection was granted to the

petitioner. The parties appeared before the Mediation Cell, Tis Hazari

Courts, Delhi on various dates and interim protection was extended by the

Sessions Court from time to time. Vide order dated 03.10.2011 again

counsel from both sides volunteered to sit together and try to formulate

some compromise between the parties who were real brothers. On

17.10.2011, it was recorded on the joint request of the counsel that

compromise was nearly over and only modalities of settlement were to be

finalized. Similar request was made on 24.10.2011, 08.11.2011,

25.11.2011. On 08.12.2011, the parties reported that the talks of

compromise had failed, Sessions Court dismissed the anticipatory bail

application of the petitioner.

6. Interim protection was again granted to the petitioner by this

Court on 13.12.2011 when the parties were given a fair opportunity to

settle the matter with the assistance of learned Senior Counsel. The said

interim protection was extended from time to time till date. Apparently, it

is a dispute between two brothers over inheritance of the properties left by

Late Sh.Mohinder Singh Saathi. The proceedings reveal that the

complainant is interested in getting his share being one of the legal heirs

of the deceased. The petitioner has expressed his willingness in para 28 (J)

to settle with the complainant and to pay him whatever he is claiming

under the guise of inheritance of 1/7th of 79000 odd shares. The petitioner

has joined the investigation on number of dates with the Investigating

Officer. The dispute over inheritance of properties including shares is

already pending in civil proceedings and no interim restrain order has

been issued against the petitioner. The gift deed in question was relied

upon by the petitioner in the written statement. The petitioner has raised

doubt on the report of Forensic Science Laboratory about genuineness/

correctness of Forensic Science Laboratory report. No findings have been

recorded so far in the civil proceedings that the gift deed filed in the said

proceedings is a forged document.

7. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

referred above, the sisters of the petitioner & complainant- other legal

heirs of the deceased have not challenged gift deed, the shares have been

transferred long back, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner. The application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to

anticipatory bail and in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail on

furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 5 lacs with one surety in the like

amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/Investigating Officer with the

condition that he shall join the investigation as and when required.

8. The bail application stands disposed of. Pending applications

also stand disposed of.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 14, 2013 tr