Delhi High Court
Preeti Wadhwan vs State on 7 September, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment :07.09.2015
+ BAIL APPLN. 1705/2015
PREETI WADHWAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Ashok
Malhotra and Mr. Neeraj Kumar
Jha, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for
the State along with SI Vikram
Singh.
Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Shailendra Babbar, Mr.
Joginder Sukhija and Ms.Karuna
Chhatwal, Advs. for complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 1712/2015
TARANPAL @ KUNWAR WADHWAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Ashok
Malhotra and Mr. Neeraj Kumar
Jha, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for
the State along with SI Vikram
Singh.
Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Shailendra Babbar, Mr.
Joginder Sukhija and Ms.Karuna
Chhatwal, Advs. for complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 1716/2015
NIRUPAMA WADHWAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Ashok
Malhotra and Mr. Neeraj Kumar
Jha, Advs.
versus
Bail Application Nos. 1705/2015, 1712/2015 & 1716/2015 Page 1 of 9
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for
the State along with SI Vikram
Singh.
Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Shailendra Babbar, Mr.
Joginder Sukhija and Ms.Karuna
Chhatwal, Advs. for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. There are three petitioners before this Court namely Preeti
Wadhwan, Taranpal Wadhwan and Nirupama Wadhwan. Preeti
Wadhwan is the wife of Satwinder Singh. Nirupama Wadhwan is the
wife of Inder Pal Singh. Taranpal Wadhwan is the son of Satwinder
Singh.
2. The present FIR (FIR No.635/2015) has been registered under
Sections 420/506/406/467/468/34 read with Section 120-B of the IPC on
the complaint of Rajesh Gullah.
3. The contents of the FIR disclose that the three petitioners along
with Satwinder Singh and Inder Pal Singh had in a criminal conspiracy
cheated the complainant; they were guilty of criminal breach of trust,
deceit and forgery pursuant to which a wrongful loss had been accrued
to the complainant and a wrongful gain had been made by the accused
including the present petitioners.
4. The FIR discloses that Rachna Gullah (the wife of the
complainant) had 31% share in the property bearing No. 17-A, Road No.
77, North West Avenue Road, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as the said property). She had purchased this vide
sale deed dated 17.09.2009. This is an admitted fact. Qua the
superstructure Rajesh Gullah was the owner of 1/16th share and the
balance was owned by M/s ISR Exim Private Limited in which Rajesh
Gullah was a shareholder to the extent of 31%.
5. The company by the name of M/s ISR Exim Private Limited had
been incorporated in the year 2007 of whom Satwinder Singh, Inder Pal
Singh and Rajesh Gullah were its directors. In the course of filing his
income tax return, the complainant learnt sometime around 26.05.2014
that a lien/charge had been created on the aforenoted said property;
Inder Pal Singh and Satwinder Singh had illegally transferred the rights
in the superstructure of the said property to West Face Hospitality
sometime around 07.05.2010. M/s ISR Exports Private Limited, M/s
West Face Hospitality (in which Satwinder Singh and Inder Pal Singh
are directors) and Wadhwan Designs (in which Taranpal Wadhwan had
a 50% shareholding) had taken loans against this property from Bank of
India as also the Indian Overseas Bank. Nirupma Wadhawan and Preeti
Wadhawan are guarantors to the loan offered to Wadhawan Designers.
6. The said property stood mortgaged and this was without the
information and without the consent of the complainant. These loans
which were obtained on the strength of this property were thereafter
disbursed into the private accounts of Satwinder Singh and Inder Pal
Singh and this was in connivance with the present petitioners and in fact
the modus operandi was that that the amounts received on the
strength of these loans were transferred into the saving bank accounts of
the present petitioners and thereafter there were corresponding transfers
made into the accounts of Satwinder Singh and Inder Pal Singh.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no
evidence whatsoever with the investigating agency to substantiate these
averments. Certificates from the Chartered Accountant have been placed
on record; submission being that even assuming that loans had been
taken by Satwinder Singh and Inder Pal Singh, these loans were export
based and not fund based and the utilization of the loan was only for the
purpose of export and not a single paisa of the loan could have been
diverted for any other purpose. Bank entries relied upon by the
investigating agency do not disclose that this money which had been
transacted into the account of the present petitioners was through the
loans which had been obtained by Satwinder Singh, Inder Pal Singh and
M/s ISR Exim Private Limited.
8. The last status report filed by the investigating agency discloses
that loans were taken from the Bank of India and in the name of various
companies including M/s ISR Exports Private Limited. Rs.8.86 crores
were transferred to the account of Preeti Wadhwan and this were w.e.f.
02.02.2011 to 26.03.2013. A sum of approximately Rs.3.70 crores was
transferred in the name of Nirupma Wadhwan which was during the
intervening period of 02.02.2011 to 11.09.2012. Rs.76 lacs were
transferred in the name of Taran Pal Wadhwan and this was w.e.f.
28.03.2011 to 27.11.2013. The bank statements annexed along with the
status report have been perused. They show entries of various dates
showing transfer of amounts in the accounts of the three petitioners.
9. In the account of Preeti Wadhwan (maintained with the Bank of
India), there are various entries showing deposits from M/s ISR Exports
Private Limited into the account of Preeti Wadhwan. One such entry is
dated 05.02.2011, showing a sum of Rs.1 crore having been transferred
from the current account of M/s ISR Exports Private Limited to the
account of Preeti Wadhwan and on the same day there is a
corresponding entry of debit showing that this amount has been
transferred from the account of Preeti Wadhwan into the account of her
husband i.e. Satwinder Singh. There are several such entries.
10. In the account of Taranpal Wadhwan (maintained with the Indian
Overseas Bank) there are various entries reflecting amounts having
received from the current account of M/s ISR Exports Private Limited
and M/s Transitions (in which Taranpal Wadhwan and Preeti Wadhwan
are directors).
11. Similarly in the account of Nirupama Wadhwan, there are several
transactions showing credit from M/s ISR Exports Private Limited and
M/s Transitions. One such entry dated 03.07.2012 reflects that Rs.50
lacs was credited into the account of Nirupama Wadhwan through the
account of M/s ISR Export Private Limited and thereafter on the same
date, there were two separate debit entries of Rs.25 lacs and Rs.25 lacs
each reflecting that these amounts had been transferred through the
RTGS mode. Into whose account, they had been transferred is the
investigation which is still going on. This is only one such example.
There are several other entries running into several lacs i.e. the entries
dated 17.10.2012 and 07.12.2012 wherein amounts had been credited
into the Saving Bank Account of Nirupama Wadhwan and on the same
day itself, these amounts had been transferred. The entry of 07.12.2012
reflects that Rs.25 lacs which was credited into the account of Nirupama
Wadhwan was thereafter transferred on the same day to M/s Uppal
Housing Limited.
12. Submission of the complainant that these persons have been
directly benefited from the loans obtained on the strength of the property
of the complainant without the complainant having any knowledge of
the same, stands by and large substantiated.
13. The second submission of the learned counsel for the complainant
is that in the course of proceedings, a property bearing No. 6/80, West
Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi had been offered by the petitioners for
settlement of accounts with the complainant but in the course of
investigation it has been revealed that this property had been mortgaged
by Inder Pal Singh with a Bank and that account having been declared
NPA, the Bank has auctioned this property in the year 2006 itself. This
fact had been concealed and on this ground alone, the prayer made by
the petitioners is liable to be declined.
14. On this count, learned counsel for the complainant admits that
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are pending qua this property;
his submission is that although the account on this property had been
declared NPA yet this property (bearing No. 6/80, West Punjabi
Bagh) has not been auctioned; additional submission being that the
petitioner had thought that after settling the account with the bank, they
would have offered this property in the course of negotiations to the
complainant and there is no falsity in this offer.
15. This submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is
belied. At the time when this property had been offered for the purpose
of negotiations it had not been informed to the complainant that
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were pending qua the said
property. This fact was never disclosed.
16. That apart, the transactions involve huge crores of money;
Satwinder Singh and Inder Pal Singh were the kingpins of the
transactions and the petitioners also being beneficiaries of the loans
which had been obtained on the property of the complainant (without
the knowledge and consent of the complainant) custodial interrogation
of the petitioners would be imminent as in the absence of the same, the
documents which have to be unearthed and for which purpose the
investigating agency is yet groping in the dark would not be able to be
gathered.
17. Inderpal Singh and Satwinder Singh are also reportedly
absconding. On a specific query put to the learned counsel for
petitioners, he states that he has no knowledge about the whereabouts of
Satwinder Singh and Inder Pal Singh; he does not know where they are.
This Court finds it difficult to digest this submission; the parties i.e.
Satwinder Singh being the husband of Preeti Wadhwan and Taranpal
Wadhwan being her son and Nirupama Wadhwan who in turn is the
wife of Inderpal Singh; this submission is again an attempt to derail the
investigation.
18. Reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioners upon the
judgments reported as Criminal Appeal Nos.1134-35/2015 Dhadresh
Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2009 (4) JCC 3021
Neelu Chopra and Anr Vs. Bharti and (2009) 8 SCC 751 Mohammed
Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another is misplaced. There
is no doubt to the legal proposition that unless the role of an accused is
defined, he should not be arrested. There is also no dispute to the
proposition that mere making of a section and its language would not by
itself be the end of the matter and unless the allegations are particularly
described against a particular party, the arrest of such a person would
not be proper.
19. In the background of the instant factual matrix no ground is made
out for anticipatory protection. Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
SEPTEMBER 07, 2015
A
