Nirupama Wadhwan v. State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date ofJudgment :07.09.2015 BAIL APPLN. 1716/2015 NIRUPAMA WADHWAN Through versus STATE Petitioner Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Ashok Malhotraand Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advs. Respondent Through Mr. Kewal SinghAhuja,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'BLEMS. JUSTICE INDERMEETKAUR INDERMEETKAUR..1. (Oral) Fororders,see file ofBailApplicationNo. 1705/2015. SEPTEMBER 07, 2015 A INDERMEET KAUR, J * % + + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date ofJudgment :07.09.2015 BAILAPPLN. 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.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shailendra Babbar, Mr. Joginder Sukhija and Ms.Karuna Chhatwal,Advs. for complainant. BAILAPPLN. 1712/2015 TARANPAL @ KUNWAR WADHWAN Petitioner Through Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Ashok Malhotra and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advs. versus Through BAILAPPLN. 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 STATE T,, , Respondent Through Mr. Kewal SinghAhuja,APP for the Statealongwith SI Vikram Singh. Mr.SandeepSethi,Sr. Adv. with Mr. ShailendraBabbar,Mr. JoginderSukhijaand Ms.Karuna CORAM: Chhatwal,Advs. for complainant. HON'BLEMS. JUSTICE INDERMEETKAUR INDERMEFTI^attpt (Oral) I. There are three petitioners before this Court namely Preeti Wadhwan, Taranpal Wadhwan and Nirupama Wadhwan. Preeti Wadhwan is the wife of SatwinderSingh. Nirupama Wadhwan is the wife of Inder Pal Singh. Taranpal Wadhwan is the son of Satwinder Singh.

¶2The present FIR (FIR No.635/20I5)has been registeredunder Sections420/506/406/467/468/34readwithSection120-Bofthe IPG on the complaintofRajeshGullah.

¶3The contentsof the FIR disclosethat the three petitionersalong with SatwinderSinghand InderPal Singhhad in acriminalconspiracy cheatedthe complainant;they were guiltyof criminalbreach of trust, deceitand forgeiypursuantto whichawrongfulloss had been accrued to the complainantand awrongfulgain had been made by the accused includingthe presentpetitioners. BailApplicationNos. 1705/2015,1712/2015&1716/2015 >•

¶4The FIR discloses that Rachna Gullah (the wife of the complainant)had 31% sharein the propertybearingNo. 17-A,Road No. 77, North West Avenue Road, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi (hereinafterreferredto as the saidproperty).She had purchasedthis vide sale deed dated 17.09.2009. This is an admitted fact. Qua the superstructure Rajesh Gullah was the owner of 1/16^'' share and the balancewas owned by M/s ISR Exim PrivateLimitedin which Rajesh Gullah was a shareholder to the extent of 31%.

¶5The company by the name of M/s ISR Exim Private Limited had been incorporatedin the year 2007 of whom SatwinderSingh,InderPal 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/chargehad 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.

¶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 -•-v (r i disbursedinto the private accounts of SatwinderSingh and Inder Pa! Singhand this was in connivancewith the presentpetitionersand in fact the modus operandi was that that the amounts received on the strengthofthese loanswere transferredinto the savingbankaccountsof the presentpetitionersand thereafterthere were correspondingtransfers made intothe accountsofSatwinderSinghand InderPal Singh.

¶7Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no evidencewhatsoeverwith the investigatingagency to substantiatethese averments.Certificatesfrom the CharteredAccountanthave been placed 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 presentpetitionerswas 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 Page 4of9 'V' intervening period of 02.02.2011 to 11.09.2012. Rs.76 lacs were ^ansferred in the nanre of Taran Pal Wadhw.,and this was w.e.f 2011 to 27.11.2013.The bankstatementsannexedalongwith the Status report have been perused. They show entries of various dates showmgtransferofamountsin the accountsofthethreepetitioners,

¶9In the accountofPreeti Wadhwan(maintainedwith the Bankof Ind.a),thereare variousentriesshowingdepositsfrom M/s ISR Exports PrivateLimitedinto the accountofPreet.Wadhwan.One such entn'is 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 entty of debit showing that this amount has been transferredfi-omthe accoumofPreetiWadhwaninto the accoumofher husbandi.e. SatwinderSingh.Thereare severalsuchentries.

¶10In the accountofTara..,paiWadhwan(maintainedwith the Indiar, Overseas Bank) there are various entries reflectingamounts having receivedfrom the curremaccoumofM/s ISR Exports PrivateLimited and JVI/s Transitions(m whichTaranpalWadhwanand Preeti Wadhwan are directors).

¶11Similarlyin the accountofNirupamaWadhwan,thereare several transactionsshowingcredit from M/s ISR ExportsPrivateLimitedand M/s Transitions.One such entiy dated 03.07.2012reflects that Rs.50 lacs was creditedinto the accoumofNirupamaWadhwanthroughthe BailApplicationNos.1705/2015,1712/2015&I7I6/20IS Page5of9 A accountof M/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 entries running into 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 entr>'of07.12.2012 reflectsthatRs.25 lacs whichwas creditedintothe accountofNirupama Wadhwan was thereaftertransferredon the same day to M/s Uppal Housing Limited.

¶12Submission of the complainantthat these persons have been directlybenefitedfrom the loansobtainedon the strengthofthe property ofthe complainantwithout the 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 BailApplicationNos. 1705/2015,1712/2015&1716/2015 Page6of9 r •'"" his submissionis that altho h ^"3 tins property; declared NPA ye, this prlperty'draZg"^TTtT xi:ir:r:~ •" would have offered thi<: with the bank, they 15-This submissionof the learned counsel for fh^ ,• belied At the tlm» u , • complainantis neglttTr ~ P-eedings under the slKpTEVtrr" property.This fact was neverdisclosed. !«• That apart, the transactions involve huge crores of Satwinder Singh and Inder Pal Singh were the f transactionsand thp- +• • kingpms of the which had beenobta'^'jbeneficiariesof the loans the knowledgeand ' " ofthepetiorer^^^^^^^ n wouldbe imminentas in the absenceofthe same ,h. -~s Which have to be unearthed.d for which puJol1 BailAppl/calionNos.1705/2015.I712/2015&:716/20I5 Page 7 of9 investigatingagency is yet gropingin 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 statesthathe has no knowledgeaboutthe whereaboutsof SatwinderSinghand InderPal Singh;he does not know wherethey are. This Court finds it difficultto digest this submission;the parties i.e. SatwinderSingh being the husband of Preeti Wadhwan and Taranpal Wadhwan being her son and NirupamaWadhwanwho in turn is the wife ofInderpalSingh;this submissionis again an attemptto derailthe investigation.

¶18Reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioners upon the judgments reported as Criminal Appeal Nos.l134-35/2015Dhadresh BipinbhaiSheth Vs. StateofGuiaratandAnother.2009 (4) JCC 3021 Neelu ChovraandAm Vs. Bhnrti and (2009) 8 SCC 751 Mohammed Ibrahimand Others Vs. StateofBiharand Annthp.ris misplaced.There is no doubt to the legal propositionthat unless the role of an accusedis defined, he should not be arrested. There is also no dispute to the propositionthatmere makingofasectionand its languagewouldnot by itselfbe the end ofthe matterand unlessthe allegationsare particularly describedagainsta particularparty, the arrest of such a person would not be proper. BailApplicationNos. 1705/2015,1712/2015&1716/2015 Page8of9 if SEPTEMBER07, 2015 INDERMEETKAUR,J -A BailApplicalionNos. 1705/2015,1712/2015&,716/2015 Page 9 of9 (