Roopan Sachdeva v. Union Territory Chandigarh

CRM-M-62493-2023 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101 CRM-M-62493-2023 (O&M) Da ! "# D!$%&%"' ( N")!*+!, 1-. 2024 ROOPAN /ACHDE0A  -PETITIONER 01/ UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH -RE/PONDENT CORAM( HON2B3E MR4 JU/TICE 5U3DEEP TI6ARI Present:  Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate with Ms. Japanjot Kaur, Advocate Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate and Mr. Amardeep Sandhu, Advocate or the petitioner. Mr. Manish !ansal, P.P., ".#. $handigarh with Mr. An%ur !ali, A.P.P., ".#. $handigarh. Ms. &avjot 'ehal, Su(stitute $omplainant, )n*Person. +++ 5U3DEEP TI6ARI. J4 (ORA3)

¶1Through the instant petition, as instituted under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., prayer is made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.09 dated 18.01.2018, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of the IPC, registered at P.S. Sector 49, Chandigarh.

¶2When the instant petition came up for initial hearing on

12.12.2023, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the fact that the present FIR embodies offence only under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of the IPC, extended the relief of interim bail to the petitioner and also directed her to join the investigation. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the investigation CRM-M-62493-2023 (O&M) 2

¶3During pendency of the instant petition, the complainant inter-jected and filed various applications, supported by affidavits, thus claiming that the investigation in the present case is not carried out in the right direc-tion.

¶4When the instant petition came up for hearing before this Court on 03.10.2024, this Court considered the submissions made by the contesting litigants and passed the hereinafter reproduced order:- "The gist of police ziminies, has been supplied to the Court by the learned Public Prosecutor for UT, Chandigarh. It is apt to note here that earlier a cancellation report, which was filed by the prosecution agency, the same was not accepted and vide order dated 27.9.2022, as passed by the learned Illaqa Magistrate concerned, directions were issued to further investigate the matter on the points, as mentioned in the said order. Even the request was made that the Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh shall depute any senior officer to further investigate the matter. Since 27.9.2022, no effective investigation has been carried out, and infact, the complainant is only made to join the investigation num-ber of times. Learned PP for UT, Chandigarh, seeks one more opportunity to conclude the investigation and also seeks an adjournment disclosing therein the role of the present petitioner, the antecedents and the in-criminating evidence as on date collected by the prosecution agency. The affidavit shall be filed by the DSP concerned and shall also dis-close the progress of investigation, as made till date. Adjourned to 4.11.2024. Interim order to continue till the next date of hearing. To be shown in the urgent list."

¶5The drawing of the hereinabove extracted order resulted in the in-vestigating officer concerned, who was sitting over the present case file since 2018, hurriedly and without making compliance of the directions issued by the CRM-M-62493-2023 (O&M) 3 learned Magistrate concerned on 27.09.2022, filing the Final Report after ac-cepting police bail of all the 16 accused, some of whom are at presently abroad and never joined investigation.

¶6Astonishingly, the complainant in the present case was made to run from pillar to post and she was made to join the investigation on number of occasions. Moreover, even the relevant documents produced by the com-plainant were not taken on record by the investigating officer concerned.

¶7The hereinabove discussed conduct of the investigating officer, besides the plight of the complainant, propelled this Court to pen down the or-der dated 04.11.2024, thereby directing the Director General of Police, Chandigarh, to examine the entire investigation file of the present case, and thereupon, file his personal affidavit. The relevant portion of the order dated

04.11.2024 is reproduced hereunder:-"...What surges forth from the status report is that, all the 19 accused persons were made to join the investigation, which includes the ac-cused-Sarbjit Singh Bains and Gurpreet Kaur, who already left India, through virtual platforms, and, hurriedly a final report was filed with-out concluding the investigation on all the above issues, as raised by the learned trial Court concerned. Not only this, when this Court put a specific query to learned Public Prosecutor, as to whether he found any document, which has been forged, specifically when there are alle-gations that false entries have been made in the ledger book, the latter, on instructions from Inspector Om Parkash, SHO, Police Station Sec-tor-49, Chandigarh, submitted that the investigation in this regard is yet to be completed. However, this fact has conveniently been con-cealed in the status report, which has been filed today in the Court. Furthermore, the status report reflects that, apparently the investigat-ing agency has given undue benefit to the accused persons and not in-voked the relevant penal provisions. Prima facie, the officer concerned, who has sworn the affidavit to file the status report, is guilty of perjury CRM-M-62493-2023 (O&M) 4 for not disclosing the relevant facts before this Court. Apart from that, the entire investigation also seems to be shoddy and unprofessional. This Court, before referring this matter to the CBI and before recording that the Chandigarh Police is incompetent to conduct proper investigation in the present matter, grants one more opportunity to the respondent to mend its conduct. Moreover, the hereinabove discussed conduct of the police offi-cials impels this Court to direct the Director General of Police, Chandigarh, to, after perusing the entire case file, furnish his personal affidavit, disclosing therein:-

i) Whether, as directed by the learned trial Court concerned, the inves-tigation in the instant FIR, on all the hereinabove extracted issues, has been carried out or not. In case, the same has not been done, then what action does he/she propose against the errant police officials/officers, including the one, who filed the status report (supra) on his affidavit

ii) As to how the final report, in the absence of two accused persons, namely, Sarbjit Singh Bains and Gurpreet Kaur, came to be filed be-fore the learned trial Court concerned……"

¶8In deference to the directions extracted hereinabove, today the learned Public Prosecutor has filed the affidavit sworn by Mr. Surendra Singh Yadav, IPS, Director General of Police, Chandigarh, which is taken on record. Copy of the affidavit is also supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner and to the complainant, who is present in person.

¶9What emanates from a studied survey of the affidavit (supra) is that, the complainant was again made to join the investigation on 06.11.2024 and the record of society was seized. After perusal of the case file, irregulari-ties in record, tampering, cutting, overwriting, manipulation and forgery of record, fabrication of documents was prima facie found out, whereupon, Sec-tions 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC have been added in the present FIR, through recording DDR No.57 dated 06.11.2024, at P.S. Sector 49, Chandigarh. CRM-M-62493-2023 (O&M) 5

¶10The affidavit (supra) further reveals that, in addition to the al-ready nominated sixteen accused, one Jagdeep Singh (Senior Auditor) and Pardeep Kumar (Inspector (A) Gr-I of R.C.S.) have also been arrayed as ac-cused on 06.11.2024 and investigation in respect of their specific role with re-gard to not highlighting the bungling of record of society is also under progress. Moreover, it also surges forth from the affidavit (supra) that, requi-site steps are being taken to obtain non-bailable warrants against accused Pushpinder Kaur and Gurpreet Kaur, who were/are in abroad and were joined in investigation through virtual mode.

¶11Insofar as the action proposed by the author of the affidavit (supra) against the errant police officials/officers is concerned, it is stated in the affidavit (supra) that, vide Memo No.2007/UT/DE/SSP Dated Chandigarh, the:- 15.11.2024, show cause notice has been issued to one Jaswinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police-cum-SDPO (Sub Division South), thereby seeking explanation regarding concealment about the facts of the investigation in the status report, as also regarding failure on his part to supervise the inves-tigation. Moreover, explanation has also been sought from him as to why de-partmental action may not be taken against him. Similarly, vide Memo No.2006/UT/DE/SSP Dated Chandigarh, the:- 15.11.2024, Memo No.2005/ UT/DE/SSP Dated Chandigarh, the:- 15.11.2024, Memo No.2004/UT/DE/SSP Dated Chandigarh, the:- 15.11.2024 and Memo No.D-921/PA/SSP/Security & Traffic Dated 16.11.2024, show cause notice/explanation has also been sought respectively from Inspector Om Parkash (present investigating officer), In-spector Jasbir Singh, Inspector Jai Parkash Singh and Sub Inspector Satinder Kumar (Now Inspector) (the then investigating officer). CRM-M-62493-2023 (O&M) 6 SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETI-TIONER

¶12The learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously submits that, neither the petitioner has been nominated as an accused in the present FIR, nor her name finds mention in the Final Report presented before the learned Mag-istrate/trial Court concerned. He further submits that, despite making requests to the court concerned, the petitioner has not been supplied copy of the Final Report.

¶13The next argument constructed by the learned counsel for the pe-titioner is that, in the year 2003-2004, the petitioner remained posted as Trea-surer of the Society concerned, and thereafter, she remained posted as Assis-tant Secretary and Press Secretary. Consequently, he argues that the petitioner was never privy to the accounts of the Society concerned and she never dis-bursed any amount, as she did not have authority to do so. Therefore, there arises no question that the petitioner is involved in embezzlement of the amount.

¶14The learned counsel for the petitioner rests his arguments with the claim that, there is no incriminatory evidence available uptil now against the petitioner to establish her guilt. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPON-DENT

¶15Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vociferously opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He claims that the submission (supra) made by petitioner's counsel regarding her posting during the relevant period is factually incorrect, inasmuch as, it has surfaced during investigation CRM-M-62493-2023 (O&M) 7 that, Ajanta Co-op. House Building (FIRST) Society Ltd. was registered vide Registration No. 631 dated 09.05.2003 and since the inception the petitioner remained a part of the Managing Committee, i.e. from 08.06.2003 to

16.08.2008 (five consecutive terms). During this period, the petitioner held key positions of Treasurer and Secretary and also actively participated in deci-sion making process. Moreover, her signatures on agreements and resolutions recorded in proceedings books for aforesaid period fixed her responsibility and accountability.

¶16Concluding his arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that, despite the petitioner being granted interim bail and directed to join in-vestigation and cooperate with the investigating officer, yet she did not at all cooperate in the investigation, therefore, her custodial interrogation is re-quired. FINAL ORDER

¶17This Court has heard the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the contesting litigants and also made a meticulous survey of the record. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, this Court does not deem it a fit and deserving case to grant the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18During the course of investigation, it emerged that, during her tenure, the petitioner along with other executive members made major collec-tions towards land costs and construction costs and for personal gains, they charged rate of interest ranging from 18% to 24% from ordinary members in violation of Standing Order dated 23.04.2004 passed by R.C.S. U.T. Chandi-garh. According to the ledger concerned, total land cost collected from 150 CRM-M-62493-2023 (O&M) 8 members is ₹ 8,68,44,845/-, and, total construction cost collected from 150 al-lottee members is ₹ 18,57,58,607/-. Moreover, the petitioner was also one amongst those, who took key decisions for allotting contract for construction of 150 dwelling units and other works to different builders on different occa-sions.

¶19What further emerged to the fore during investigation is that, dur-ing the relevant period, the petitioner along with other executive members ap-proved the expenditure of society from time to time. Surprisingly, excess pay-ment over and above the contract agreement was made to one Surindra ₹ 2,52,34,548/- is recoverable since the year 2006-2007 tillBuilders, hence date, but, the same has not been recovered by the accused despite repeated au-dit objections. Moreover, sums of ₹ 8,78,049/-, ₹ 3,72,005/- and ₹ 1,83,432/- are also recoverable under different heads from Surindra Builders, however, the same also remains yet un-recovered despite repeated audit objections. Fur-thermore, the petitioner along with other executive members also fraudulently obtained Fire N.O.C. without installing firefighting equipment in Ajanta Soci-ety.

¶20During the course of investigation, the relevant record was ob-tained from various government departments and comparative analytical ap-praisal thereof revealed that:-

(i) Total embezzlement in land cost is ₹ 52,73,727/-; ₹ 6,78,16,623/-;(ii) Total embezzlement in construction cost is

(iii) Total excess collections is ₹ 7,30,90,350/- (This amount is neither reflected in society trial balance and balance sheets, nor found in any of the society's bank accounts or FDRs). CRM-M-62493-2023 (O&M) 9

¶21Insofar as petitioner's conduct after securing interim bail from this Court is concerned, the record makes vivid display that, although the peti-tioner joined the investigation in pursuance to directions of this Court, how-ever, she did not at all cooperate in the investigation, rather remained evasive to most of the queries posed by the investigating officer. Moreover, despite hers being granted numerous opportunities, the petitioner did not disclose the details of all bank accounts opened to deposit excess collected funds in land cost and construction cost and wherefrom amount was partially withdrawn and given to Chandigarh Housing Board in the shape of demand drafts to-wards land cost deposited by 150 eligible members. The relevant details are extracted hereunder:- a. ₹ 1,53,61,450/- was deposited prior to allotment of land, vide letter No.1231 dated 24.01.2002; b. ₹ 21,50,743/- was deposited on 23.02.2002; c. ₹ 96,09,000/- was deposited on 10.06.2003; d. ₹ 40,00,000/- was deposited on 22.07.2003 during the afore-said period.

¶22Taking into account: (i) incorporation of Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC in the present FIR during the course of investigation; (ii) the hereinabove discussed role of the petitioner and the inculpatory evidence col-lected by the investigating agency, which prima facie establishes guilt of the petitioner; (iii) gravity of the offence; (iv) petitioner's conduct that, under the garb of interim protection granted by this Court, she did not cooperate in the investigation, rather adopted all methods to scuttle the investigation; this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. CRM-M-62493-2023 (O&M) 10

¶23In summa, the instant petition is dismissed.

¶24Pending application(s) stand disposed of accordingly. (5ULDEEP TIWARI) No3e:be/ 18, 2024                       JUDGE 2e3in2e/ W9et9e/ %Aea=ing//ea%one2 : Ye%/No W9et9e/ ReAo/tab1e : Ye%/No