TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -B IPC registered with Police Station Division No.3 Chandigarh Annexure P/1 qua the present petitioners is hereby quashed with all consequential effects. - CRM-M-1720 of 2013, CRM-M-1526 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2015 - MR. FATEH DEEP SINGH, J. Present : Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate for the petitioners.(In CRM-M-1720 of 2013). Ms. Reeta Kohli, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. J.S. Bedi, Senior Advocate with Sh. P.S. Ahluwalia Ms. Diya Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-1526 of 2015) and for respondent No.2 (in CRM-M-1720 of 2014). Mr. Karanvir Singh Khehar, Advocate for applicant-Intervenor. FATEH DEEP SINGH, J. Since both these petitions, one preferred by accused-petitioners Madan Singh and Harshvinder Pal Singh seeking quashment of FIR No.69 dated 19.4.2012 under Sections 420, 465, 467,468, 471, 120-B IPC registered with Police Station Division No.3, Chandigarh, Annexure P/1 and another a transfer petition preferred by complainant (accused in FIR No.125 dated 10.6.2014) Raman Uppal praying for transfer of the investigations of this case under Sections 406, 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .6.2001 and meanwhile, Sukhbir Singh Shergill introduced his brother-in-law Jagbir Singh as director promoter in place of Promila Rani on her death. It deserves to be highlighed here that Jatinder Singh Dua and Sagar Singh Dua were assigned task of signatories of the Company by Mr. Gurnihal Singh Pirzada. Now it is the claim of Mr. Raman Uppal that he read a public notice purported to have been issued by Sukhbir Singh Shergill and Gurbir Kaur Shergill throwing Jatinder Singh Dua and Sagar Singh Dua out of the Company in a news paper and which as per him in his complaint which forms ditto replica by way of Annexure A-1 was on 19.4.2012 was the date of his knowledge of bungling in the company i.e. almost after 11 years of the incorporation of the company. It is pertinent to mention here that between 1.10.2010 to 29.9.2011 Dua's are alleged to have allotted shares to themselves and their close ones totalling 900,000/- shares which were approved by Dr. Raj Singh, the then, Registrar of Companies (in short, 'ROC') and in pursuance of this dominance the Dua's are further alleged to have introduced two new directors present petitioners-Madan Singh from Chandigarh and Harsh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the company is tried to be taken over by Gurnihal Singh Pirzada who is bent upon misusing the process of law and which is the precise motive for their false implication, thus, claimed that they have done nothing wrong and that there is neither any allegations against them in the FIR much less having come up during the investigations or even in the challan presented on 9.12.2013 and thus being a pure misuse of process of law and the complainant being a stooge of Gurnihal Singh Pirzada the same needs to be quashed qua them. The respondents in their response though have denied the allegations of the petitioners claiming that there has been fraud through forgery of valuable security and there has been fabrication of the records of the company and that the company funds were being moved from the company accounts to personal accounts of the accused and that the investigations have established the involvement of each and every accused in the entire scandal and sought to term the averments of the petitioners to be without any basis and sought dismissal of the petition. The main grounds raked up by the petitioner Raman Uppal in the transfer petition are that the Chandigarh polic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he notice of this Court:- 1. FIR No.69 dated 19.4.2012 under Sections 420,465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sector 3, Chandiagrh by Raman Uppal through his attorney Deepinder Singh Dhaliwal against Sukhbir Singh Shergill, and others. 2.FIR No.175 dated 16.9.2013 under Sections 464, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 212, 420 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sector 3, Chandiagrh by Raman Uppal through his attorney against Jeet Mohinder Singh Sidhu, MLA, and others. 3 FIR No.193 dated 20.9.2013 registered at Police Station Luhdiana against Shergills by Narinder Singh. 4.FIR No.125 dated 10.6.2014 under Sections 406, 420 and 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B (subsequently added) registered at Police Station SAS Nagar, Mohali by Narinder Singh against Raman Uppal. 5.FIR No.1246 dated 30.11.2014 under Sections 406 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi made by Narinder Singh against the Company Secretaries. 6.FIR No.286 of 2012 registered at Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh made by Gurnihal Singh Pirzada agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... status in the company has been set to knot in the light of the statement of Nipana Vilas Gajanan, Assistatnt Registrar of Companies made through his letter dated 9.5.2012 Annexure P/2 who has stated that Raman Uppal has no role to play in the company and further it is brought to the notice of this Court that neither during the investigations nor till date the application for allocation of name by way of Form 1-A dated 21.5.2001 in his name has ever been brought on the records by way of original. Though, it is claimed that the records of the Registrar of Companies stood destroyed under the rules but it could not be disputed by any of the counsel that the computerisation of the office of Registrar of Companies took place in the year 2006 and till date the Investigating Agencies are totally in dark as to the contents of the records of the Registrar of Companies. What needs to be highlighted that Raman Uppal claims that he prior to the present company owned 08 companies but to the very query of the Court, his counsel could not point out any of the documents of these companies to show mention of the present company or any of the returns filed before the Registrar of Companies or the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation moved before the trial Court on 28.8.2012 for permission to represent Raman Uppal in that very case for which he was authorised by him by virtue of authorisation dated 27.8.2012 are matters which show that he has a definite interest in the company. The bias which is sought to be compounded in the investigations is further highlighted by the learned counsel from the fact that finding dated 11.2.2013 by the Police Complaint Authority has indicted police for partial investigations. The perusal of the challan filed before the trial Court reflects that there is no worthwhile investigations undertaken by the police as to the very source of this money which obviously had come from Delhi and apparently appeared to be by way of benami transactions and which were invested by way of subsidiary companies as a camouflage and, thus, give them an appearance of legitimacy. The police either in the State of Punjab at Mohali or at Chandigarh did not had the audacity to collect the relevant records as to the share certificates, letters of transfer of shares, memorandum of articles of association, list of directors which are kept in the office of company and so on and so forth. The provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of the Act regarding which a definite amount of fees is paid in the Office and which is also not forthcoming before this Court through the Investigating Agency. Even the letters dated 9.5.2012 and 24.5.2012 lack credibility and genuineness why the police did not insist on taking into possession original documents which could have facilitated impartial and proper investigations are matters which leads to the only conclusion that all was not well with the police investigating either in Chandigarh or in Mohali and rather reply of the State admitting that Itinderjeet Singh and Jagbir Singh were the founding promoters of the company is in sharp contradiction to the claim of the complainant and which is certainly a distressing feature for the prosecution in this case. The resolve of the players to this squabble to share the spoils of this either by hook or crook is evident from the manner in which they have tried to overawe the judicial process not only by levelling allegations against the subordinate judicial officer but even judges from this Court have sought to recuse are matters which cannot be taken lightly and rather reflects an immense greed which has been there to ach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a witness but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that in its endeavour to bring about truth in the investigations it mandates that Investigating Officer should record statement which do throw light on the crucial aspects of the case and cannot shrug off his shoulders from this onerous duty which law casts upon him. As has been detailed and discussed above it is beyond any doubt that a sinister design is being made to hide the truth from the Court as well as those concerned with it and the Court cannot shut its eyes to such misdoings of the Investigating Agency. This Court in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as has been laid down in Anita Malik vs. State of Haryana and others 2015(2) RCR (Criminal) 59 though are to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases when the Court finds it necessary in order to do justice between parties and to instil confidence in the public and therefore, this Court has vast power to refer the matter to an independent agency and the present case is one of those cases which urgently and earnestly makes out it to be an exceptional case. Though, even after submission of chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a ruling party's Legislator has his interest in the present case and further as is evident from the records placed before this Court levelling allegations against a senior functionary of the Chandigarh Police, ADC to Governor for interfering into investigations, this Court is satisfied that a drastic step needs to be undertaken at this juncture as there is every likelihood of obviating course of justice as it is not only to do justice but also to instil confidence in the system of the people at large. The police under the guise of carrying on investigations cannot be allowed to fretter away the evidence and, thus, act as an impediment and thereby obstruct the course of justice. More so, there has been gross dereliction of duties by the police and seeking support from Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 205 being a classical case of misconduct in carrying on the investigations by these two agencies against whom the State is bound to initiate disciplinary action which they have failed to do so and rather as the history of previous Investigation Officers who too have failed in their duties there is an urgent need for the authorities to wake up from their deep s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of conspiracy with the co-accused. Learned State counsel with all fairness after going through the challan has conceded the fact that till date nothing concrete has come in the evidence or their specific role in any crime or evidence of the Investigating Agency against these petitioners. Taking support from State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1991 (1) RCR (Criminal) 383 whereby, Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following eventualities:- 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
