Taranpal @ Kunwar Wadhwan v. State

INDERMEET KAUR, J * % + + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date ofJudgment :07.09.2015 BAIL APPLN. 1705/2015 PREETI WADHWAN Through Petitioner Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Ashok Malhotra and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advs. STATE STATE versus Respondent Through Mr. Kewal SinghAhuja,APP for the State along with SI Vikram Singh. Mr.SandeepSethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shailendra Babbar, Mr. Joginder Sukhija and Ms.Karuna Chhatwal, Advs. for complainant. BAIL APPLN. 1712/2015 TARANPAL@KUNWARWADHWAN Petitioner Through Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Ashok Malhotra and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advs. versus Through BAIL APPLN. 1716/2015 NIRUPAMA WADHWAN Through Respondent 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. Petitioner Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Ashok Malhotra and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advs. versus Bail ApplicationNos. 1705/2015,1712/2015& 1716/2015 Respondent Through Mr. Kewal SinghAhuja,APP for the Statealongwith SI Vikram Singh, Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shailendra Babbar, Mr. Joginder Sukhija and Ms.Karuna Chhatwal,Advs. for complainant. CQRAM: HON'BLEMS. JUSTICEINDERMEETKAUR INDERMEETKATTR^ .T (Oral)

¶1There are three petitioners before this Court namely Preeti Wadhwan, Taranpal Wadhwan and Nirupama Wadhwan. Preeti Wadhwan is the wife ofSatwinderSingh. NirupamaWadhwan is the wife of Inder Pal Singh. Taranpal Wadhwan is the son of Satwinder Singh.

¶2The present FIR (FIR No.635/2015)has been registeredunder Sections420/506/406/467/468/34readwith Section120-Bofthe IPC on thecomplaintof RajeshGullah.

¶3The contentsof the FIR disclosethat the three petitionersalong with SatwinderSingh and Inder Pal Singh had in a criminalconspiracy cheatedthe complainant;they were guilty ofcriminal breach of trust, deceitand forgerypursuantto which a wrongfulloss had been accrued to the complainantand a wrongfulgain had been made by the accused includingthepresentpetitioners. Bail ApplicationNos. 1705/2015,1712/2015 1716/2015 Page2of9

¶4The 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 (hereinafterreferred to as the said property). She had purchased this vide sale deed dated

17.09.2009. This is an admitted fact. Qua the superstructureRajesh Gullah was the owner of 1/16^*^ share and the balancewas owned by M/s ISR Exim Private Limited in which Rajesh Gullah was a shareholder to the extent of 31 %.

¶5The companyby the name of M/s ISR Exim PrivateLimitedhad been incorporatedinthe year 2007 of whom SatwinderSingh,InderPal Singh and Rajesh Gullah were its directors.In the course of filing his income tax return, the complainantleamt sometimearound 26.05.2014 that a lien/chargehad been created on the aforenoted said property; Inder Pal Singh and SatwinderSingh had illegallytransferredthe rights in the superstructureof 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 SatwinderSingh and Inder Pal Singh are directors)and WadhwanDesigns(in which TaranpalWadhwanhad a 50% shareholding)had taken loans againstthis propertyfrom Bank of India as also the Indian OverseasBank. Nirupma Wadhawanand Preeti Wadhawanare guarantorsto the loan offeredto WadhawanDesigners.

¶6The 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 Bail ApplicationNos. 1705/2015,1712/2015& 1716/2015 Page3 of9 ^4 disbursedinto tlie private accounts of SatwinderSingh and Inder Pal Singhand this was in connivancewith the presentpetitionersand in fact the modus operandi was that that the amounts received on the strengthoftheseloanswere transferredinto the savingbank accountsof the presentpetitionersand thereafterthere were correspondingtransfers made into the accountsofSatwinderSinghand InderPal Singh.

¶7Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no evidencewhatsoeverwith the investigatingagency to substantiatethese averments.Certificatesfrom the CharteredAccountanthave beenplaced on record; submissionbeing that even assuming that loans had been taken by SatwinderSingh and InderPal Singh,these loans were export basedand not fund basedand the utilizationofthe 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 investigatingagency do not disclose that this money which had been transactedinto the account of the present petitionerswas through the loanswhichhad been obtainedby SatwinderSingh,InderPal Singhand M/s ISR Exim Private Limited.

¶8The last status report filed by the investigatingagency discloses that loans were taken from the Bank of India and in the name of various companiesincludingM/s ISR Exports Private Limited. Rs.8.86 crores were transferred to the account of Preeti Wadhwan and this were w.e.f

02.02.2011to 26.03.2013.A sum of approximatelyRs.3.70 crores was transferredin the name of Nirupma Wadhwan which was during the Bail ApplicationNos. 1705/2015,1712/2015&1716/2015 Page4of9 intervening period of 02.02.2011 to 11.09.2012. Rs.76 lacs were transferred in the name of Taran Pal Wadhwanand this was wef

28.03.2011to 27.11.2013.The bankstatementsannexedalongwith the status report have been perused. They show entries of various date.s showmgtransferofamountsin the arjouMsofthethreepetitioners.

¶9In the accountofPreeti Wadhwan (maintainedwith the Bank of India),thereare variousentriesshowingdepositsfrom M/s ISRExports PrivateLimitedinto the accountofPreeti Wadhwan.One such entiyis dated05.02.2011.showingasum ofRs.l crorehavingbeen 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 entiy of debit showing that this amount has been transferredfrom the accountofPreetiWadhwaninto the accountofher husbandi.e. SatwinderSingh.Thereare severalsuchentries.

¶10In the accountofTaranpalWadhwan(maintainedwiththe Indian Overseas Bank) there are various enfries reflecting amounts having receivedfrom the currentaccountofM/s ISR ExportsPrivateLimited and M/s Transitions(in whichTaranpalWadhwanand Preeti Wadhwan are directors).

¶11Similarlyin the accountofNirupamaWadhwan,thereare several transactionsshowingcredit from M/s ISR ExportsPrivateLimitedand M/s Transitions.One such entry dated 03.07.2012reflects that Rs.50 lacs was creditedinto the accountof NirupamaWadhwanthroughthe BailApplicationNos.1705/2015,1712/2015&1716/2015 Page5of9 accountofM/s ISR Export PrivateLimitedand thereafteron the same date, there were two separatedebit entriesofRs.25 lacs and Rs.25 lacs each reflectingthat these amounts had been transferred through the RTGS mode. Into whose account, they had been transferred is the investigationwhich is still going on. This is only one such example. There are several other entriesrunninginto several lacs i.e. the entries dated 17.10.2012and 07.12.2012wherein amounts had been credited into the SavingBank AccountofNirupamaWadhwanand on the same day itself,these amountshad been transferred.The entry of07.12.2012 reflectsthatRs.25 lacs whichwas creditedinto the accountofNirupama Wadhwan was thereaftertransferredon the same day to M/s Uppal Housing Limited.

¶12Submission of the complainant that these persons have been directlybenefitedfrom the loansobtainedon the strengthofthe property of the complainantwithoutthe complainanthaving any knowledgeof the same, standsbyand largesubstantiated.

¶13The secondsubmissionofthe learnedcounselfor the complainant is that in the courseofproceedings,a propertybearingNo. 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 investigationit has been revealedthat this propertyhad been mortgaged by Inder Pal Singh with a Bank and that accounthaving been declared NPA, the Bank has auctionedthis propertyin the year 2006 itself This Bail ApplicationNos. 1705/2015,1712/2015&1716/2015 Page6of9 fact had been concealedand on this ground alone, the prayer made by the petitioners is liable to be declined.

¶14On this count, learned counsel for the complainant admits that proceedingsunder the SARFAESI Act are pending qua this property: his submissionis that althoughthe 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.

¶15This submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is belied.At the time when this propertyhad been offeredfor 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.

¶16That 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 obtainedon the propertyof the complainant(without the knowledgeand consentof the complainant)custodialinterrogation of the petitionerswould be imminentas in the absenceof the same, the documents which have to be unearthed and for which purpose the Bail ApplicationNos. 1705/2015,1712/2015& 1716/2015 Page 7of9 / / investigating agency is yet groping in the dark would not be able to be gathered.

¶17Inderpal 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 SatwinderSingh and Inder Pal Singh; he does not know where they are This Court finds it difficult to digest this submission;the parties i.e SatwinderSingh 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.

¶18Reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioners upon the judgments reported as Criminal Appeal Nos.l 134-35/2015 Dhadresh Bivinbhai 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 ofBihar 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. Bail Application Nos. 1705/2015, 1712/2015 & 1716/2015

¶19In the backgroundofthe instantfactualmatrixno groundis made outfor anticipatoryprotection.Petitionsare accprdingiydismissed. ly SEPTEMBER07,2015 INDERMEETKAUR,J A BailApplicationNos. 1705/2015,1712/2015&1716/2015 Page9of9

% IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date ofJudgment:07.09.2015 + BAILAPPLN. 1712/2015 TARANPAL@ KUNWAR WADHWAN Petitioner Through Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Ashok Malhotra and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advs. STATE versus Through CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR..1. (Oral) For orders,see file ofBailApplicationNo. 1705/2(1)15. SEPTEMBER 07, 2015 A Respondent 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. r