Gurkaran Singh Arora Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1068388
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-02-2013
AppellantGurkaran Singh Arora
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
crm nos.m-15581 and 19277 of 2013 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh (i) crm not m-15581 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision :02. 08.2013 gurkaran singh arora ...petitioner versus state of punjab ...respondent (ii) crm not m-19277 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision :02. 08.2013 satwinderpal singh arora ...petitioner versus state of punjab ...respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice jitendra chauhan present: mr.amit rawal, sr.advocate, with mr.sandeep wadhawan, advocate, for the petitioners.mr.luvinder sofat, aag, punjab, assisted by si sucha singh. mr.kanwaljit singh, sr.advocate, with mr.ajaivir singh, advocate, for the complainant. mr.r.s.rai, sr.advocate, with mr.gautam dutt, advocate, for the complainant-bank. sethi atul 2013.08.06 17:41 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm nos.m-15581 and 19277 of 2013 -2- jitendra chauhan, j. (oral) this order of mine shall dispose of two petitions noted above, filed by the petitioners under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure (for short, 'the cr.p.c.') seeking pre-arrest bail, in case fir no.31 dated 25.03.2013, registered under sections 420, 423, 120-b of the indian penal code, (for short, 'the ipc') at police station division no.8 (kailash chowk).ludhiana. the learned counsel for the petitioners.inter alia, contends that the dispute, which is essentially of civil nature, is inter se the family members.the account no.003424900550 with the hdfc bank, mall road branch, ludhiana, is a joint account in the name of family members.which could be operated by any of the joint account holders.either singly or jointly, at any stage. the allegation against the petitioners is of withdrawing an amount of rs.89,87,758/- as against their share of rs.47,05,854/-. he further states that in terms of order dated 22.05.2013, the excess amount allegedly withdrawn by the petitioners.stands deposited back in the account. he further states that in the civil suit filed by the bank, injunction order has been passed, whereby his account in the state bank of india, gandhi nagar branch, ludhaiana, stands blocked. therefore, no loss has been caused to either of the complainants. on the other hand, the learned state counsel, on sethi atul 2013.08.06 17:41 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm nos.m-15581 and 19277 of 2013 -3- instructions, submits that on 11.03.2013, accused satwinderpal singh, moved an application at the hdfc bank, mall road branch, ludhiana, for unblocking the account in question on the pretext of transferring his share of rs.47,05,854/-, to the account at sbi gandhi nagar branch, ludhiana. at 12.30 p.m., the account was unblocked. at 12.31 p.m., a cheque was presented at the kalsi nagar barnch, for transfer of rs.89,87,758/-, to account no.13102320002008, in the name of m/s.amco industrial entreprises ltd.at 12.38 p.m., an amount of rs.1,33,33,000/- was further transferred through rtgs, to account no.30469991500, at sbi branch gandhi nagar, ludhiana. at the same time, an amount of rs.90,00,000/-, was transferred by satwinderpal singh arora, in his own personal account no.30012630072, vide cheque no.907898. the learned counsel, therefore, contends that the modus operandi of the petitioners speaks volumes about their criminal intent of defrauding the complainants. the learned state counsel further submits that as claimed by the accused, even the amount of rs.47,05,854/-, is not the actual share of the petitioners as the petitioners also owe loan liability to the bank. he further states that merely depositing back the amount does not absolve the petitioners of the criminal act committed by them. the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant submits that the entire fraud was committed by the petitioners within a sethi atul 2013.08.06 17:41 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm nos.m-15581 and 19277 of 2013 -4- span of 10-15 minutes. the account in question was unblocked by the accused-petitioner, satwinderpal singh, while sitting in mall road branch, whereas the amount was got transferred by his co-accused son, gurkaran singh, while sitting in another branch of the bank. he further submits that it was sunday on 10.03.2013, therefore, there was no question of inderjit singh arora, etc., approaching neeraj dhand, an official in the complainant-bank. the learned counsel submits that the role of the bank officials should also be probed. heard. the allegations against the petitioners are of siphoning huge amount of money from the joint account with mala fide intent to defraud the complainants. in this whole episode, the role of the bank officials is also under scanner, for which custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. in state represented by c.b.i.versus anil sharma, 1997(4) recent criminal reports (criminal) 268 (sc).hon'ble the apex court has observed as under:- "we find force in the submission of the cbi that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation- oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under section 438 of the code. in a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. success in such interrogation would elude, sethi atul 2013.08.06 17:41 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm nos.m-15581 and 19277 of 2013 -5- if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time, he is interrogated. very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. the argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. the court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."in view of the above, the present petition are hereby dismissed. the complainant-bank is free to initiate enquiry to ascertain involvement of any of its employee, as per law. however, nothing noticed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the instant case. 02.08.2013 (jitendra chauhan) atulsethi judge sethi atul 2013.08.06 17:41 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CRM Nos.M-15581 and 19277 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (I) CRM not M-15581 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision :

02. 08.2013 Gurkaran Singh Arora ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (II) CRM not M-19277 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision :

02. 08.2013 Satwinderpal Singh Arora ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Amit Rawal, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab, assisted by SI Sucha Singh.

Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Ajaivir Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.

Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the complainant-Bank.

Sethi Atul 2013.08.06 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM Nos.M-15581 and 19277 of 2013 -2- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

(Oral) This order of mine shall dispose of two petitions noted above, filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') seeking pre-arrest bail, in case FIR No.31 dated 25.03.2013, registered under Sections 420, 423, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'the IPC') at Police Station Division No.8 (Kailash Chowk).Ludhiana.

The learned counsel for the petitioneRs.inter alia, contends that the dispute, which is essentially of civil nature, is inter se the family membeRs.The account No.003424900550 with the HDFC Bank, Mall Road Branch, Ludhiana, is a joint account in the name of family membeRs.which could be operated by any of the joint account holdeRs.either singly or jointly, at any stage.

The allegation against the petitioners is of withdrawing an amount of Rs.89,87,758/- as against their share of Rs.47,05,854/-.

He further states that in terms of order dated 22.05.2013, the excess amount allegedly withdrawn by the petitioneRs.stands deposited back in the account.

He further states that in the civil suit filed by the Bank, injunction order has been passed, whereby his account in the State Bank of India, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Ludhaiana, stands blocked.

Therefore, no loss has been caused to either of the complainants.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel, on Sethi Atul 2013.08.06 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM Nos.M-15581 and 19277 of 2013 -3- instructions, submits that on 11.03.2013, accused Satwinderpal Singh, moved an application at the HDFC Bank, Mall Road Branch, Ludhiana, for unblocking the account in question on the pretext of transferring his share of Rs.47,05,854/-, to the account at SBI Gandhi Nagar Branch, Ludhiana.

At 12.30 p.m., the account was unblocked.

At 12.31 p.m., a cheque was presented at the Kalsi Nagar Barnch, for transfer of Rs.89,87,758/-, to account No.13102320002008, in the name of M/S.Amco Industrial Entreprises LTD.At 12.38 p.m., an amount of Rs.1,33,33,000/- was further transferred through RTGS, to account No.30469991500, at SBI Branch Gandhi Nagar, Ludhiana.

At the same time, an amount of Rs.90,00,000/-, was transferred by Satwinderpal Singh Arora, in his own personal account No.30012630072, vide cheque No.907898.

The learned counsel, therefore, contends that the modus operandi of the petitioners speaks volumes about their criminal intent of defrauding the complainants.

The learned State counsel further submits that as claimed by the accused, even the amount of Rs.47,05,854/-, is not the actual share of the petitioners as the petitioners also owe loan liability to the Bank.

He further states that merely depositing back the amount does not absolve the petitioners of the criminal act committed by them.

The learned counsel for the respondent-complainant submits that the entire fraud was committed by the petitioners within a Sethi Atul 2013.08.06 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM Nos.M-15581 and 19277 of 2013 -4- span of 10-15 minutes.

The account in question was unblocked by the accused-petitioner, Satwinderpal Singh, while sitting in Mall Road Branch, whereas the amount was got transferred by his co-accused son, Gurkaran Singh, while sitting in another branch of the Bank.

He further submits that it was Sunday on 10.03.2013, therefore, there was no question of Inderjit Singh Arora, etc., approaching Neeraj Dhand, an official in the complainant-Bank.

The learned counsel submits that the role of the bank officials should also be probed.

Heard.

The allegations against the petitioners are of siphoning huge amount of money from the joint account with mala fide intent to defraud the complainants.

In this whole episode, the role of the bank officials is also under scanner, for which custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary.

In State represented by C.B.I.versus Anil Sharma, 1997(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 268 (SC).Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed as under:- "We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation- oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code.

In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed.

Success in such interrogation would elude, Sethi Atul 2013.08.06 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM Nos.M-15581 and 19277 of 2013 -5- if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time, he is interrogated.

Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual.

The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases.

The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."

In view of the above, the present petition are hereby dismissed.

The complainant-Bank is free to initiate enquiry to ascertain involvement of any of its employee, as per law.

However, nothing noticed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the instant case.

02.08.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Sethi Atul 2013.08.06 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh