Harjinder Singh Kang v. State Of Punjab
!"#$%&! #$'()* $'
&+#+#,$&!
-&!./.
+ +&,0/$" 1 &.2,$%&$+ 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 4
-#" 5*/6 !) ,$/ ( " $ &+#+#,$&!
-&!./.
+ +&,0/$" 1 &.2,$%&$+ 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 7 8
&&2 9(/"
&+#+#,$&!
-&!./.
+ +&,0/$" 1 &.2,$%&$+ 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
4
!&.(*/6 !
&+#+#,$&!
-&!./.
+ +&,0/$" 1 &.2,$%&$+ 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 8 :
; %%# +(,!& &+#+#,$&!
-&!./.
+ +&,0/$" 1 &.2,$%&$+ +&,0%&<#.#,$=:8 = >;
! "#$ %&$ '
!($ %&
)* +)($ %& !)&
, +-.)$ %&
/., 0-*$ %& 1 + *)$ %& 0 !)#-$ %&
1
3).) 0 4--) ")-$ %& 2-(- %$ %%/$
'5 2) %..6#$ %& /7%8% 8-) 3)$ %&
3).) 0 99999999 ? 3)- (( )## -, 5& -& ) - :; * -(-# #-
3) -# +- 1 -(-#
*-.
. 5& ( 5-.
:; 1 $ +- $ $ $ 1$ "
;
#- +- # 36$ 8-- 7)-
%(5 (-.
( (- :; 5- (,#- #. 8,* !)-$ 6) 6 7)-$ ##.- 3 3'$ 26- +)&
(- +)&$ 6) ,,< #$ 6## 2'- !.
, # %-#'- )-(# ,,< 5-.
+
$ =5 >$ 8.-$ 7)-$ 6)-) 6 , +-.)$ &-#5# # # &-- ,,< . ,) &-<-.
( 5& ( - , +-.)$ 6) )6 (,#-$ ,- ##( #$ # -- , # . - ,,< ? % 3 3'$ 26- +)&
(- +)& #.
,,< # #-* =,'- 4) !( &- ## ( #-.
6)-, 5& - ,,< )* &-- )( 5#-&-.
,- )( 5-.
- )($ # )-(# - .( ,) 5& - ,,< , (
,- (
(< , , 3 3'$ 26- +)&$
(- +)&$ =,'- 4) !( % , ) ##.-$ ,,< #@ & * # - / 7)- % 8&#,( %)-<
6) )- A$ 6 (, ,$ 6)( %(- !( 3-6-$ )* ( , ,,< .) ,) 6 , 3)$ #
. # , -&-.
# # -- ( 1 $ 6)-) 3 3'$ 4) !($ =,'- 26- +)&
*-.
26- +)& =,'- +-.)$ # - /7%8% , - ,,< ( # .-& %(- !( 3-6- ) < $ ) ( *6 ,,< ,) )-( # & ## # /7%8% < , ) ( *6 ,$ -& ) )$ ,, * # ( A 6)-, - ,,< ( , # )($ )5< -.
6.# #
% .-- :;$ ,-. --- -# , *-.
. ## )($ ?, 4) !($ . - --( - ")
. # # )< ##< -(,#- )- -# -&-# -$ 6)- - ,--##< & - # -- ,- , -) 6< ) ).) )A # ) ##.- < ( -& , >?, 4) !($ & ( (,#- -# 5 ,#- 5 #.-.
:; ##.- ((--.
< )-.
#&## .- . -) -.< < .(
?- # )< & ,, 6- - # - ,,< (< -& )( 3)< & ( # ##.- A ((-- )-.
.< .- )( ## "-.
4) !($ ## #< '- )< < '- .- - A- 3)- -# -.- A- &< ( )( - --( (- 3)$ - . & ##6 & ? 5-
+, , -# ,+ ) 5(- )- # %- %& /#$
'5$ - # # (,#-$ &)(#< . ##.- .- - 3)< ,< ,-< )) ) # 6.# # (< )( ; , ,-< )) , -#-.
,--$ - - .( ,) 5& - ,,< )6-.
6 , &-#5# # . ,$ -& , ,--$ ,, # ,, 6)-, - ,,< , . * # A ( #$ 6)-# ##< *6-.
, - 6 < ) ,,< ) . 5---
)-.
((- -& - ( (< ( -& ( >& - ( (< =,'- ) #-* )- -( ,--.
6 (,#--< 5' -( 5(- *,-.
&-6 .&-< ##.- #&## .- ,--$ .-.
--( & 5# )$ -# -.- A- ).) ( ) ( 6)-) ,-< ) )) >& )6-$ ?-< ,-.
-( * - ( -.) 2$ - . #-5# -(-
7.
;
) # # ,- -5# #.) . ).) ##< , , # 5- ( . ##( +
$ Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana and by inducing the complainant and his uncle to believe in the authenticity of those documents are further alleged to have got executed and registered a sale deed for a sum of Rs. 5.5 crorer with regard to the aforesaid property, claimed to have been owned by Mandeep Singh, though it was never owned by him. These fabricated documents included allotment letters, transfer application forms and sale deeds. The petitioners as well as co-accused are alleged to have derived wrongful benefit out of the sale consideration and have caused wrongful loss to the complainant and his uncle. During the
course of investigation, accused Mandeep Singh and Upjit Singh were arrested. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the subject crime. After going through the disclosure statements, it is revealed that co-accused Mandeep Singh and Upjit Singh, in connivance with the present petitioners, had prepared fake documents qua above said property, for which, a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs was given to co-accused Amit Kumar Tiwari and Raj Singh, who were officials in GLDA. It is further revealed that the amount so received from the complainant was shared by the accused persons and in that process, an amount of Rs. 13 was given to petitioner Harjinder Singh Kang; petitioner Vijay Kumar @ Sonu Mahajan had received an amount of Rs. 80 Lakhs, out of which, Rs. 12 Lakhs was transferred in his bank account and Rs. 1.
5 Lakhs in the account of his wife namely Neha Mahajan, whereas rest of the money was given to him in cash and petitioner Naresh Kumar had received an amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs. A joint perusal of the status reports also reveals that the petitioners, in connivance with other accused, had tried to usurp a govt. property of the value of crores of rupees. There are serious allegations against the petitioners, some of whom have criminal antecedents also. They along with other co-accused had duped the complaiant/victims of the huge amount of Rs. 5.5 crores.
Keeping in view the gravity of allegations, I am of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is must for conducting proper investigation in the matter and also for ascertaining the manner in which the false and fabricated documents were prepared by involving govt. officials in order to cheat and defraud the complainant and his uncle. Simply because the petitioner(s) have joined investigation at some point of time, no indefeasible right has accrued in their favour to seek grant of anticipatory, especially when no extraordinary or sparing circumstances have been made out in their favour.
1 6## # ,,-- #6 6)-# --.
,,#-- . 5-#$ - $ # ,$ #-*#-) -#-.
(,-.
&- -#-.
--(--.
6- ,6 +- 1 ?- ?-< ,-.
-( $ -# -.- , , A#--&#< ( #--- - ) A--.
, 6) 6## &5# +- 1 < # -(- -- -.
-# -.- , - (# #.# , -(-# -# ; ( -- . . , !,-.
&-6 -- 5&$ ;
( - ,-- ?-< ,-.
-( -#-.
* - , ) )- -# -.- A- ).) ( ,#- %-.#<$ --.
(-$ )5< -(- # 5&- )-5& #< ,, --.
, )## ?,- ,-- (- 10.
Let a photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case.
:8