Nirupama Wadhwan v. State

2. The present FIR (FIR No.635/20I[5]) has been registered under Sections 420/506/406/467/468/34 read with Section 120-B ofthe IPG on the complaint ofRajesh Gullah.

3. The contents ofthe FIR disclose that the three petitioners along with Satwinder Singh and Inder Pal Singh had in acriminal conspiracy cheated the complainant; they were guilty of criminal breach of trust, deceit and forgeiy pursuant to which awrongful loss had been accrued to the complainant and awrongful gain had been made by the accused including the present petitioners. Bail Application Nos. 1705/2015, 1712/2015 &1716/2015 2015:DHC:10681 >•

4. The 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 (hereinafter referred to as the said property). She had purchased this 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 balance was owned by M/s ISR Exim Private Limited in which Rajesh Gullah was a shareholder to the extent of 31%.

5. The company by the name of M/s ISR Exim Private Limited had been incorporated in the year 2007 of whom Satwinder Singh, Inder Pal 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/charge had 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.

6. The 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 disbursed into the private accounts ofSatwinder Singh and Inder Pa! Singh and this was in connivance with the present petitioners and in fact the modus operandi was that that the amounts received on the strength ofthese loans were transferred into the saving bank accounts of the present petitioners and thereafter there were corresponding transfers made into the accounts ofSatwinder Singh and Inder Pal Singh.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no evidence whatsoever with the investigating agency to substantiate these averments. Certificates from the Chartered Accountant have been placed on record; submission being that even assuming that loans had been taken by Satwinder Singh and Inder Pal Singh, these loans were export based and not fund based and the utilization ofthe 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 investigating agency do not disclose that this money which had been transacted into the account of the present petitioners was through the loans which had been obtained by Satwinder Singh, Inder Pal Singh and M/s ISR Exim Private Limited.

8. The last status report filed by the investigating agency discloses that loans were taken from the Bank of India and in the name of various companies including M/s ISR Exports Private Limited. Rs.8.86 crores were transferred to the account of Preeti Wadhwan and this were w.e.f 02.02.2011 to 26.03,2013. A sum of approximately Rs.3.70 crores was transferred in the name of Nirupma Wadhwan which was during the Bail Application Nos. 1705/2015, 1712/2015 &1716/2015 Page 4of[9] '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 bank statements annexed along with the Status report have been perused. They show entries of various dates showmgtransferofamounts in the accountsofthethreepetitioners,

9. In the account ofPreeti Wadhwan (maintained with the Bank of Ind.a), there are various entries showing deposits from M/sISRExports Private Limited into the account ofPreet. Wadhwan. One such entn' is dated 05.02.2011, showing asum ofRs.l crore having been 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 transferred fi-om the accoum ofPreeti Wadhwan into the accoum ofher husband i.e. SatwinderSingh. There are several such entries.

10. In the account ofTara..,pai Wadhwan (maintained with the Indiar, Overseas Bank) there are various entries reflecting amounts having received from the currem accoum ofM/s ISR Exports Private Limited and JVI/s Transitions (m which Taranpal Wadhwan and Preeti Wadhwan are directors).

11. Similarly in the account ofNirupama Wadhwan, there are several transactions showing credit from M/s ISR Exports Private Limited and M/s Transitions. One such entiy dated 03.07.2012 reflects that Rs.50 lacs was credited into the accoum ofNirupama Wadhwan through the BailApplicationNos. 1705/2015, 1712/2015& I7I6/20IS Page5of[9] A account of M/s ISR Export Private Limited and thereafter on the same date, there were two separate debit entries ofRs.25 lacs and Rs.25 lacs each reflecting that these amounts had been transferred through the RTGS mode. Into whose account, they had been transferred is the investigation which is still going on. This is only one such example. There are several other entries running into several lacs i.e. the entries dated 17.10.2012 and 07.12.2012 wherein amounts had been credited into the Saving Bank Account ofNirupama Wadhwan and on the same day itself, these amounts had been transferred. The entr>' of07.12.2012 reflects that Rs.25 lacs which was credited into the account ofNirupama Wadhwan was thereafter transferred on the same day to M/s Uppal Housing Limited.

12. Submission of the complainant that these persons have been directly benefited from the loans obtained on the strength ofthe property ofthe complainant without the complainant having any knowledge of the same, stands byand large substantiated.

13. The second submission ofthe learned counsel for the complainant is that in the course ofproceedings, a property bearing No. 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 investigation it has been revealed that this property had been mortgaged by Inder Pal Singh with a Bank and that account having been declared NPA, the Bank has auctioned this property in the year 2006 itself This Bail Application Nos. 1705/2015, 1712/2015 &1716/2015 Page 6of[9] r •'"" his submission is 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 submission of the learned counsel for fh^,• belied At the tlm» u, • complainant is neglttTr ~ P-eedings under the slKpTEVtrr" property. This fact was never disclosed. !«• That apart, the transactions involve huge crores of Satwinder Singh and Inder Pal Singh were the f transactions and thp- +• • kingpms of the which had been obta'^'jbeneficiaries of the loans the knowledge and ' " ofthepet iorer^^^^^^^ n would be imminent as in the absence ofthe same,h. -~s Which have to be unearthed.d for which puJol 1 BailAppl/calionNos. 1705/2015. I712/2015&:716/20I[5] Page 7 of[9] investigating agency is yet groping in the dark would not be able to be gathered.

17. Inderpal 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 Satwinder Singh and Inder Pal Singh; he does not know where they are. This Court finds it difficult to digest this submission; the parties i.e. Satwinder Singh being the husband of Preeti Wadhwan and Taranpal Wadhwan being her son and Nirupama Wadhwan who in turn is the wife ofInderpal Singh; this submission is again an attempt to derail the investigation.

18. Reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioners upon the judgments reported as Criminal Appeal Nos.l 134-35/2015 Dhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State ofGuiarat and Another. 2009 (4) JCC 3021 Neelu Chovra andAm Vs. Bhnrti and (2009) 8 SCC 751 Mohammed Ibrahim and Others Vs. State ofBihar and Annthp.r 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 ofasection and its language would not by itself be the end ofthe 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 Page 8of[9] if SEPTEMBER 07, 2015 INDERMEET KAUR, J -A BailApplicalionNos. 1705/2015, 1712/2015&,716/2015 Page 9 of[9] (