Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1301 (PNJ)

S. L. Goel v. State (Union Territory, Chandigarh)

2012-09-25

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - S.L. Goel, the petitioner by way of Criminal Misc. No.M-25242 of 2012 and Jagdish Rai, the petitioner by way of Criminal Misc. No. M- 26087 of 2012 seek regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.5 dated 13.6.2012 at Police Station Vigilance, Union Territory, Chandigarh for an offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Mr. R.S.Cheema, learned senior counsel arguing for petitioner S.L.Goel has submitted that M/s Radhey Sham Sarees Private Limited (for short, “the company”) is a company incorporated with share capital divided in 1.60 lakh shares. According to him, the shares were divided primarily among the people of S.L.Goel group and Radhey Krishan group. According to him, Ramesh Kumar and his mother had only 1000 shares each. According to him, the FIR is an abuse of the process of the law because it has been lodged by Ramesh Kumar, a share holder on 13.6.2012 after he and his mother had sold their shares on 3.3.2010 to one Kamal Kapoor. In this regard, he drew my attention to Annexure P14, copy of letter written by Ramesh Kumar to the Advisor, Union Territory, Chandigarh. According to him, the complainant is playing the role of a black-mailer and after lodging this FIR against every other share holder of the company, he is entering into compromise with various persons and even the purchaser of the shop-cum-flat (SCF) owned by the company after getting money. In this regard, he drew my attention to Annexure P13, which is a compromise between Ramesh Kumar and Rajesh Gupta, Yogesh Gupta, Neelam Gupta and Veena Gupta, who have purchased the SCF. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, SL Goel has further submitted that after lodging of this FIR, Ramesh Kumar had given power of attorney to Kamal Kapoor, the purchaser of his shares and vide Annexure P15, dated 3.9.2010, he cancelled his power of attorney in favour of Kamal Kappor. According to him, the Company was incorporated to run a saree business and they decided to purchase a SCF for which they took a loan from State Bank of India which they could not repay. According to him, the Company was incorporated to run a saree business and they decided to purchase a SCF for which they took a loan from State Bank of India which they could not repay. The bank went to Debt Recovery Tribunal under sections 17 and 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act”)) and the SCF was ultimately sold under the orders of Permanent Lok Adalat, Chandigarh. He has submitted that from the sale proceeds, the dues of the bank were paid and the remaining amount was shared by the share holders. He has further submitted that the petitioner, SL Goel is in judicial custody and his custody is no more required for the purpose of investigation. 4. Mr. Anand Chhibber, learned senior counsel representing Jagdish Rai, the petitioner has submitted that Jagdish Rai was inducted as a Director of the Company on the pattern of Ajay Singh for the purpose of facilitating the sale of SCF. According to him, the SCF was sold under the orders of Permanent Lok Adalat and though, it fetched a price lesser than the market value, yet no criminal intention is attributable to the petitioner in relation thereto. He has submitted that Ajay Singh, the other Director inducted for the purpose of sale of the SCF has been granted bail by this court vide orders dated 22.8.2012 passed in Criminal Misc. No.M-24199 of 2012 and the petitioner is also entitled to bail. 5. Learned Standing counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh has submitted that a sum of Rs. 20.00 lacs was paid by Vipin Jain. According to him, he purchased shares from Radhey Krishan. He has further submitted that he was projected as a prospective buyer of the SCF by the share holders. According to him, he had also filed an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 in which there was an order restraining the sale of the SCF. According to him, the Tehsildar had registered the sale deed despite the stay order as also in the absence of no objection certificate from the Estate Officer. According to him, some of the share holders are still absconding and besides them, the Tehsildar is also to be arrested and for this reason, he opposed the bail plea of the petitioners. 6. According to him, some of the share holders are still absconding and besides them, the Tehsildar is also to be arrested and for this reason, he opposed the bail plea of the petitioners. 6. What is apparent and important in the case before me is the fact that the FIR has been lodged by Ramesh Kumar, the complainant after he sold his shares to one Kamal Kapoor. When he sold his shares in the company and was left with no share therein, he was left with no interest in the property of the company. It is after the sale of the shares that he has lodged this FIR and thereafter, he is making affidavits in favour of different persons giving them clean chits by way of compromise. 7. The petitioners are in judicial custody which shows that the investigating agency did not require their custody for interrogation. The petitioner, S.L.Goel has already sold his shares as is apparent from para No. 4 of Annexure P7. The sale of the SCF owned by the company has been under the orders of Permanent Lok Adalat at a time when State Bank of India was proceeding against the said property under the Act. 8. The concession of bail cannot be refused to the petitioners for the reason that Vipin Jain paid Rs. 20.00 lacs for this SCF. Though, there was stay regarding sale of the SCF in the application filed by Vipin Jain under the Act, the said application stands withdrawn on 23.7.2012 by the said person, as is evident from Annexure P3 (in Criminal Misc. No. M-26087 of 2012). This concession can also not be denied for the reason that some fault can be found on the part of the Tehsildar in registering the sale deed. The petitioner, S.L.Goel cannot be kept in custody till the other co-sharers of his group are arrested. 9. On the other hand, the petitioner, Jagdish Rai can also be held entitled to bail on the ground of parity as a similarly placed co-accused of Jagdish Rai, named, Ajay Singh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.8.2012. 10. In this view of the matter, without further commenting on the merits of the case, I find the petitioners to be entitled to bail. 10. In this view of the matter, without further commenting on the merits of the case, I find the petitioners to be entitled to bail. Consequently, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. ---------0.B.S.0------------