Vanita Vishal v. State Of Punjab
!"#$#
%
!
"""
&' ( )*
# ! $
%
! & '()
& $*
!
$ & + , % !
!$
% $
%
! & '()
,
( !+,!-.$/01 # !
-./ 0 0 ! +12 3 64 6- )6)-
-64*-)6*()6'7 10
0
$
+12
'
Reference application No.228DCP dated 12.01.2024 from Varinder Singh son of Sh.Mukhtiar Singh, Project Director, AGI Infra Ltd. SCO 15, Urbana, Jalandhar HeightsII Village Phaullarwal 66 Feet Road, Jalandhar. To Hon'ble Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar. Subject: Complaint against (1) Rohit son of Sh.Piara Ram (Mobile No.7696928152), 2. Vinita Vishal wife of Sh.Rohit residents of B1/727, Ram Nagar Jalandhar (3) Kamal son of Sh.Piara Ram for playing fraud and cheating with the company of the applicant M/S. AGI Infra Ltd. SCO 1 5, Urbana, Jalandhar HeightsII Village Phaullarwal 66 Feet Road, Jalandhar. Sir, it is humbly submitted that 1) that complainant is the Project Director of AGI Infra Ltd.
SCO 15, Urbana, Jalandhar HeightsII Village Phaullarwal 66 Feet Road, Jalandhar and is well aware of the facts of the complaint and competent to file complaint on behalf of above company. 2) That the above company AGI Infra Ltd. Deals in the property its residential, plots, flat etc. and other business projects have been constructed and are being constructed at Jalandhar and other areas of Punjab. 3) That Rohit son of Sh.Piara Ram was given job in above company AGI Infra Ltd. About 5 years back and he was working as Senior Sales Executive. Wife of above Rohit namely Vinita Vishal was also working in this company as Receptionist since long. Above Rohit used to talk to the customers directly on behalf of company regarding properties of the company and sale of flats.
The company had authorized above Rohit to fix the conditions of sale of the property and to receive the sale amount for the company from the purchaser. 4) That above Rohit did fraud with our company in January, 2023 and after this he had given a written apology to the company, copy of which is attached. After his apology company did not shunt out Rohit from the company on compassionate grounds and above Rohit continued on his post in the Company.
shunted out from the Company in July, 2023. Thereafter company also came to know about the frauds played by him and his family members. In this regard, police had also registered FIRs against above Rohit and his wife Vanita Vishal and family members. Copies of the FIR are attached. (6) That one customer of company namely Jasbir Kaur had purchased 2 Flat 804 ft and 501 N SmarthomesII. One day she came to the employee of the company and said that she had made payment of Rs.6.5 lacs each for the flat through two RTGS transactions and she has come to take receipts of the same.
Upon which, the employee of thecompany checked the record of the company and came to know that above Rohit has deposited amounts of RTGS done by Jasbir Kaur in the name of one Kamal in three flats and have issued 3 receipts in his name, the details of which is as under: In Flat No.801B, JalHIII vide Receipt No.2174 dated 13.05.2023 IDFBR 52023050800630908 SBI716 dated 08.05.2023, in Flat No.1101E, SHII, 2 BKH and Flat No.1602E, SHII 2 BHK two receipts of Rs.3.25 lacs each having No. 1268 dated 13.05.2023 SBI 716 dated 08.05.2023 and Receipt no.1269 dated 13.05.2022. The company perused more record regarding these flats and came to know that the two RTGS of Rs.6.5 lacs each done by Jasbir Kaur have not been deposited in her flat and Rohit and Vinita Vishal have got deposited above said entire amount in above 3 Flats No.
801B, JalHIII, No.1101E, SHII, 2 BKH and Flat No.1602E, SHII 2 BHK. 7) That when we asked more about this matter from above Jasbir Kaur, then she told that she had demanded receipt from Rohit, upon which Rohit and Vinita Vishal assured her that your receipts would be issued and would reach you, which were not given to her. Upon which she came to Company and demanded receipts. 8) That thereafter when Company more perused the record of these three flats then came to know that Rohit and Vinita Vishal had got booked on flat No.402E of one Resham Kaur in Flat No.801B and its payment of Rs.4 lacs made through RTGS is also fraudulently booked in the name of Kamal in Flat No.801B, JalHIII and receipt No.1932 dated 05.09.
2023 has been issued in the name of Kamal and when Resham Kaur was contacted then she also told that hehad got RTGS of Rs.4 lacs for her Flat No.402 and she also when contacted Rohit for receipt then he assured her that receipt will reach her, which did not receipt till date. 9) That thereafter another customer Ankur Kulhari had also given a complaint to the company in which she had demanded his amount of Rs.3.5 lacs done through RTGS back on cancellation of his booking of flat. When company perused his record of RTGS, then came to know that above RTGS of Rs.3.5 lacs has also been issued in the name of Kamal in Flat No. 1602E, SHII, 2BHK.
about above said Kamal then it revealed that above Kamal is the real brother of shunted out employee from company due to fraud with company, namely Rohit and devar of Vinita Vishal. 10) From this it is clear that Kamal is also accomplice of Rohit and Vinita Vishal in this fraud and above three in connivance with each other have played fraud with the company and its customers under a wellplanned conspiracy. From this it reveals that these three persons had intention of playing fraud since the beginning due to which these persons also got deposited the amount of other customers in the flat of Kamal with bad intention. Photostat copies of agreement and receipts are attached. 12) That above Kamal sent an email dated 11.12.2023 on the e.
mail of the company and asked about the process of refund of money of flats from the company from which it becomes clear that the amount of above said persons were fraudulently got deposited by Kamal in connivance with Rohit and Vinita Vishal in the three flats got booked by him and Rohit had issued forged receipts in favour of Kamal also. He intends to misappropriate said amount by takingrefund in connivance with Rohit and Vinita Vishal. As such, it is requested to you to take appropriate action against above accused for playing fraud with our company AGI Infra Ltd. and issuing forged receipts, in connivance with each other. I shall be thankful to you. Sd/ in English Varinder Singh son of Sh.Mukhtiar Singh, Project Director AGI Infra Ltd.
SCO 15, Urbana, Jalandhar HeightsII Village Phaullarwal 66 Feet Road, Jalandhar, 9779935330, upon which higher officers wrote 'ADCP2 Verify and report and take n/a as per law' dated 12.01.2023. Upon which, ADCP2, Jalandhar wrote in his report that from the inquiry conducted by me, I have arrived at a conclusion that Rohit son of Piara Ram and his wife Vinita Vishal were working in company AGI Infra Ltd. SCO 15, Urbana, Jalandhar HeightsII Village Phaullarwal 66 Feet Road, Jalandhar as Senior Sale Executive and Receptionist, respectively about 05 years back. Rohit used to talk to the customers directly on behalf of company regarding properties of the company and sale of flats. The company had authorized above Rohit to fix the conditions of sale of the property and to receive the sale amount for the company from the purchaser.
Rohit and Vinita had earlier also done embezzlement of money with the company and an FIR No.188 dated 19.10.2023 under Sections 406, 420 IPC, PS Sadar, FIR No.191 dated 20.10.23 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B PS Sadar and FIR No.198 dated 01.11.2023 under Sections 40, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC PS Sadar, Jalandhar are already registered against Rohit, Vinita Vishal and their other accomplices, due to which they were thrown out of job.
payment of Rs.6.5 lacs each for the two flat i.e. 804 and 501 B Smart House2 through two RTGS and on checking of record of the company it revealed that said amounts of RTGS done by Jasbir Kaur has been deposited in the name of one Kamal in three flats and 3 receipts have been issued in his name which were of Flat No.801B, JalHIII vide Receipt No.2174 dated 13.05.2023 IDFBR 52023050800630908 SBI716 dated 08.05.2023. Flat No.1101E, SHII, 2 BKH and Flat No.1602E, SHII 2 BHK two receipts of Rs.3.25 lacs each having No.1268 dated 13.05.2023 SBI 716 dated 08.05.2023 and Receipt no.1269 dated 13.05.2022. The two RTGS of Rs.6.5 lacs each done by Jasbir Kaur have not been deposited in her flat and Rohit and Vinita Vishal have got deposited above said entire amount in above 3 Flats No.801B, JalHIII, No.1101E, SHII, 2 BKH and Flat No.
1602E, SHII 2 BHK. Оп demanding the receipts Rohit and Vinita Vishal assured her that her receipts would be issued and would reach her, which were not given to her. Flat No.402E was booked by she made payment of Rs.4 lacs through RTGS and she was not given any receipt and was assured that receipt will reach her. Thereafter another customer Ankur Kulhari had also given a complaint to the company for return of Rs.3.5 lacs paid by him through RTGS on cancellation of his booking of flat. On perusal of record of RTGS, it revealed that above RTGS of Rs.3.5 lacs has also been issued in the name of Kamal in Flat No. 1602E, SHII, 2BHK. Company inquired about above said Kamal then it revealed that above Kamal is the real brother of shunted out employee from company due to fraud with company, namely Rohitand devar of Vinita Vishal.
That above Kamal sent an email dated 11.12.2023 on the e.mail of the company and asked about the process of refund of money of flats from the company from which it becomes clear that the amount of above said persons were fraudulently got deposited by Kamal in connivance with Rohit and Vinita Vishal in the three flats got booked by him and Rohit had issued forged receipts in favour of Kamal also. From the perusal of record obtained from Punjab National Bekhan Phollriwal and SBI Jalandhar Heights it revealed that AGI Company's customers Jasbir Kaur, Resham Kaur and Ankul Kulhari had transferred amount in the Bank Account of company for their respective flats, but Rohit and Vinita Vishal issued receipts of these amounts in the name of Kamal for Flat No.801B, JalHIII, Flat No.1101E, SHII 2BHK & Flat No.1602E, SHII 2 BHK.
From the statements of complainant and Jasbir Kaur wife of Kulbir Singh resident of Flat No.604, Palace1, 66 ft road Jalandhar Heights, Balwinder Singh Sandha son of Niranjan Singh resident of House No.
House No.ES499, Mohalla Abadpura, Jalandhar, Ankur Kulhari resident of C504, Jalandhar Heights11, 66 ft. road, Jalandhar and documents produced, it reveals that Rohit, Vinita Vishal and Kamal in connivance with each other have played fraud with the company by issued fake receipts in favor of Kamal in respect of the money deposited by the customers for flats of the company. 14. Recommendations: Rohit son of Piara Ram, Vinita Vishal wife of Rohit and Kamal son of Sh.Piara Ram residents of B1/727, RamNagar Jalandhar, in connivance with each other have played fraud with company by depositing the money of the customers of various flats in the Flat No.801B, JalHII, Flat No.110E, SHII, 2 BHK & Flat No.1602E, SHII 2 BHK of Kamal.
It is recommended to register case under Sections 406, 420, 120B IPC, at PS Sadar Commissionerate, Jalandhar against them. Sd/ in English Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police2 dated 01.04.2024, upon which Hon'ble Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar wrote 'Approved' and signed in English. Today at Police Station: On receipt of above complaint along with inquiry report through post in the police station, this FIR under above mentioned sections against above said persons has been registered and original complaint along with Inquiry Report, documents and copy of FIR is being sent to Sl Sarabjit Singh 2345 to In charge Chowki Jalandhar Heights through Dak. Control Room is being informed. Closure Rapat No.02 dated 06.04.2024.'
.21!21,.2#
23!04+-.-10!5!1,1,.2!"
8
! $ % +12 !
% !$ $
% ' $ $
$
9 ! ! !!$ (: 6/ )6)-
$ 9 $
!
(( 64 )6)- )/ (6 )6)-
))
% ;
;
! & %
$
, $ , !
23!04+-.-10!141!4267.85+4,2421 <
0
! '
$ % , % ! ! ) ):
$ 8
0 1 < $
! % ' 2 .
% $ % !$ 2 -
, % %
#$ ! ! % ! 2 % $ ==2 .4 (: 6- )6)- 8
! +12 $ - 24+9#,# 7 $ ! !
$ ) ):
$
$ !
!
$
!$ !
! %
(( 64 )6)- )/ (6 )6)- )) %
;
;
! & % 0
, $ , !
! ! %
2 !
& 0 >
! % ! !
& 2
'
"2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether
denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer.
Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a firsttime offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In ReInhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609 going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v. KingEmperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore ageold and the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days.
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory." #
0
% $
!
)( 0 1 # ! & >"
#
$% "
& ' ( )
) 7 ! %
'
'
! !
, % $ !
% % $
!
0 02'')5/(-')6)) :( * +
&,
*-
6) 6. )6). % % )( 0 1 0 ! ! !
, !
?
$ !
, % % 1 $
! $ *
!! $ %
!
!7,#,.2
1 % ! !
! ! $ ! 0 *= $ 9% $ !
! & #
% ' (
anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No