High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/38105/2025dismissed

Randhir Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

2025-07-21Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil12 pages

#!$ !

%&'%( )*+,-.

" #

$%& ' (

* &+&,

( -

(

.-/ ++01 !$ +$ &+&0 2

$+1 $&+ $13 $1% $3! !&+4'

-# !%1+ &$ -55

#55 6 )7 4!*

& (

.-/

4 "At this time, it is registered that one complaint No.PGD No.513860System No.515020 dated 24.01.2025 has been received from Surjit Singh s/o Ruda Singh, R/o Gali No.2, Bachittar Colony, Jamalpur,Ludhiana, Mob. No.98724125433, 98721141345 against Randhir Singh, R/o House No.61, Village Badheri, Sector 411D, Chandigarh1 160038/01/23, Mobile

No.90560190804, 82647120804, 2) Sukhdeep Singh, R/o House No.2776, Phase16, Mohali in connivance with each other, on the basis of fake and false visa, for committing cheating and fraud of Rs. 14 lakh at Police Station, subject of which is that, To, the Hon'ble Shri Bhagwant Mann, Chief Minister of Punjab, Chandigarh. 2. The Worthy DGP, Punjab, Chandigarh. Subject:1 Complaint against 1 1) Randhir Singh, R/° House No. 61, Village Badheri, Sector 411D, Chandigarh1 160038/01/23, Mobile No.90560190804, 82647120804, 2) Sukhdeep Singh, R/o House No. 2776, Phase16, Mohali by hatching a conspiracy in connivance with each other, on the basis of fake and false visa, for committing cheating and fraud of Rs.14 lakh, regarding already submitted complaint PGD No.357486 dated 29.05.2024 apart from again conducting enquiry by A.H.T.

Unit, Police Line Ludhiana's officials, by sending to more senior officer of IPS rank or deeply conducting enquiry of facts of the complaint, after registration of case against above Randhir Singh regarding delivering justice to the complainant. Sir, it is respectfully submitted that I, Surjit Singh so Ruda Singh, am R/o Gali No.2, Bachittar Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana and request you as under:1 1. That I am a peace1 loving and law1abiding citizen.

That in connection with the above subject, I had submitted one complaint against Randhir Singh for arranging fake and wrong visa of Canada to my son Kuldeep Singh and for committing fraud and cheating with me for Rs.14 lakh and for taking action against him appearing before you alongwith one complaint with all documents like fake visas and photo copies of cheques issued by Randhir Singh for Rs.7 lakh. At this time, my complaint is under consideration with the Investigating Officer, Hardev Singh, A.H.T. Unit, Police Line, Ludhiana. Whereas I contacted the above Investigating Officer Hardev Singh and recorded my statements and submitted copies of documents relating to cheating/fraud committed by the above persons and at that time, the Investigating Officer Hardev Singh assured me before the SHO/INSP S.

Satvir Singh that he will immediately take action against the accused persons and will register FIR against them. That after this, the Investigating Officer did not take any action against the above persons for preparing fake documents, committing cheating/fraud of money, abusing and threatening rather consigning the complaint to the office record saying that the case of parties is pending in theCourt. It is pertinent to mention over here that the above persons have committed cheating/fraud with me for Rs.

taking action against them. In connection with the complaint, the accused No.1 had issued a cheque for Rs.7 lakh under his signatures which also the accused persons did not get passed intentionally and in which connection, complaint u/s 138 NI Act is pending in the court against accused No.1. Whereas both the above accused persons in connivance with each other have issued fake visa and after taking Rs.14 lakh from me, both the accused have committed fraud, the Investigating Officer despite this instead of taking action against the accused persons, without summoning them and without recording their statements and without delivering justice to me, submitted a copy of my present complaint of NI Act case to the counsel of the accused Shri Sutashu Kumar Das, Mobile No.

96466154627 and by giving reference of the same, above accused under corruption in connivance with the 10 told to consign my complaint to the office record. Therefore, it is requested to you that against the above persons in connivance with ach other, on the basis of fake and false visa, regarding committing of fraud of Rs.14 lakh, regarding the earlier submitted complaint PGD No. 357486 dated 29.05.2024, again enquiry may be got conducted instead of A.H.T. Unit, Police Line, Ludhiana's officials, by sending to some senior IPS officer or deep enquiry may be got conducted by going into the facts of the case and after registration of case against above Randhir Singh and justice be delivered to the complainant. Thanking you, Complainant 1 Surjit Singh s/o Ruda Singh, R/o Gali No. 2, Bachittar Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana, Mob. No.

987241 25433, 98721141345 dated 15.01.2025. Copy to:1 1. The SHO/ INSP S. Satvir Singh, A.S.T. Unit, Police Line, Ludhiana, 2. I.O. Hardev Singh, A.S.T. Unit, Police Line, Ludhiana for necessary information and action. Enquiry of the above complaint got conducted by the worthy ADCP Investigation, Ludhiana, who wrote in his enquiry report that 1 To, the Worthy Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana. No.273/15A/A.D.C.P.In. dated 11.04.2025. Subject:1 Report regarding complaint PGD No. 513860/515020 dated 24.01.2025/ 22.03.2025 from Surjit Singh so Ruda Singh. 1. Demand of the complainant:1 Complaint against Randhir Singh and Sukhdeep Singh in connivance with each other committing fraud of Rs.14 lakh on the basis of fake/false visa and for committing fraud, registration of case and delivering justice to the complainant. 2.

Statements submitted by the complainant party:1Statement of Surjit Singh. 3. Documents submitted by the complainant party:1 enclosed with the complaint. 4. Statements submitted by the opposite party:1 Statement of Randhir Singh, 5.

/ complaint. 6. Statements and documents submitted by third party:

Nil. 7. Details of earlier enquiries:1 PGD No.357486 dated 29.05.2024. 8. (A) Enquiry conducted is coming under multiple enquiry or not? No, (B) During this enquiry, compliance of standing order No.3 of 2024 has been done or not? Yes. 9. Enquiry report:1Sir, it is respectfully submitted that the complainant Surjit Singh s/o Ruda Singh, R/o Gali No.2, Bachittar Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana, submitted his complaint against Randhir Singh, R/o House No. 61, Village Badheri, Sector 411D, Chandigarh and Sukhdeep Singh, R/o House No.2776, Phase16, Mohali in connivance with each other on the basis of fake/false visa committed fraud and cheating of Rs. 14 lakh for registration of case and delivering justice to the complainant. Complainant Surjit Singh so Ruda Singh, R/o Gali No.

2, Bachittar Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana, for conducting of complaint PGD No.357486 dated 29.05.2024 from some Senior Police Officer under subject has been submitted, regarding which the complainant filed CRM1M1152021 2025 before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh on dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P18) have passed order for disposing the complaint within 04 weeks' time. This complaint was pending with A.H.T. Unit Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana which has been handed over to the undersigned for further investigation. During enquiry of the complaint, the complainant Surjit Singh so Ruda Singh, earlier recorded statement dated 30.11.2024 is enclosed with the complaint who recorded his Tartima statement that complainant Surjit Singh s/o Ruda Singh, R/o Gali No.

2, Bachittar Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana stated that I am resident of above address. Today, I have come present in connection with the enquiry of my complaint PGD No.513860/515020 dated 24.01.2025. In this connection, I want to say that I have already recorded my statement in this regard on dated 30.11.2024 and my said statement may be written, read and understood as my statement. In continuation to this, I am submitting to you document Annexure1A to Annexure1F. As per Annexure1F, the visa given by the accused persons got checked from Canadian Embassy and this visa and tickets were found to be fake. In this way, all these accused persons by making fake visa and fake documents have committed fraud of Rs. 14 lakh with us. After taking necessary legal action against the accused persons, justice be delivered to us.

I have recorded my statement to you, heard and found to be correct.

third party Gurmit Singh s/ o Mukhtiar Singh R/o VPO Behrampur Bet, Tehsil Sri Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar (Aadhar No.4332 0796 3130) stated that I am resident of above address and am doing Agricultural work. Today, I came present in connection with enquiry of complaint No. 513860/515020 dated 24.01.2025 from Surjit Singh alongwith my brother Jaspal Singh. In this connection, I want to say that Surjit Singh is our brother1in1law (Jija), who for sending his son Kuldeep Singh to Canada abroad talked to us, regarding this we talked to our Jija Chanchal Singh, who is living in England, then our Jija Chanchal Singh through one of his friend got us introduced with Travel Agent Randhir Singh. Travel Agent Randhir Singh told that he is sending people in different countries through visa and Sukhdeep Singh is his partner.

Then we took alongwith us Travel Agent Randhir Singh in the year 2021 came to the house of our Jija Surjit Singh at Jamalpur, Ludhiana where Travel Agent Randhir Singh demanded Rs.18 lakh for sending our bhanja Kuldeep Singh abroad and my Jija Surjit Singh agreed with him for Rs.14 lakh. Travel Agent Randhir Singh is being given cash or online money from time to time as per his demand regarding which my Jija Surjit Singh used to tell me. On June 05, 2022, Travel Agent Randhir Singh in my presence received cash amount of Rs.2.50 lakh from my Jija Surjit Singh. Then in the year 2024, my Jija Surjit Singh told that Travel Agent Randhir Singh till now has ọ taken from him Rs. 14 lakh but he did n t sent my bhanja Kuldeep Singh abroad and has sent fake visa and tickets. I have recorded my statement to you, heard and found to be correct.

During enquiry of the complaint, opposite party Randhir Singh s/o Harnek Singh earlier recorded statement dated 26.03.2025 is also enclosed with the complaint, who recorded his pratima statement that Randhir Singh s/o S. Harnek Singh R/o House No.61, Sector 411D, Chandigarh stated that I am resident of above address. I have come present in connection with enquiry of complaint PGD No.513860/515020 dated 24.01.2025 from Surjit Singh. In this connection, I want to say that regarding this complaint, I have already recorded my statement on dated 26.03.2025 and the same may be written, read and understood as my statement. I have recorded my statement to you, heard and found to be correct. Opposite party Sukhdeep Singh R/o House No.2776, Phase106, Mohali despite knowing, joined enquiry of the complaint and did not submit his facts/proof. 10.

0 wanted to go abroad Canada, regarding which the complainant talked to his relative Jaspal Singh, gurmit Singh for sending his son abroad Canada, who told the complainant regarding Randhir Singh s/o Harnek Singh R/o House No.61, Sector 411D, Chandigarh Travel Agent. That Randhir Singh in the months of November, December, 2021 came to the house of the complainant. Randhir Singh demanded Rs.14 lakh as expenses for sending abroad Canada to Kuldeep Singh son of the complainant regarding which the complainant gave his consent. Then the complainant for file expenses gave Rs.20,200/1 on 13.04.2022 and Rs.20,250/1 deposited in account No.7013809651 by NEFT. After that in the above account of Randhir Singh from the bank account of his son Kuldeep Singh No.35736328367 Bank SBI Samrala Chowk, Ludhiana on dated 6th May, 2022 got transferred Rs.

13,500/1 by NEFT. After this, on dated 18.05.2022, cash amount of Rs. 1,91,050/1 were given to Randhir Singh. After receipt of this amount, he had got done Biometric of complainant's son Kuldeep Singh at Chandigarh. After this on dated 05 June, 2020, Rs.2,50,000/1 cash and on dated 10th July, 2022, Rs.2,00,000/1cash from his house were given to Randhir Singh for which no receipt has been given to the complainant. In this way, about Rs. 7,00,000/1 Randhir Singh got received from the complainant and balance amount was to be given after receipt of visa. After that on dated 22nd November, 2023, the complaint asked Randhir Singh regarding visa of his son, then he said that visa of your son has been received and pay the balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/1, who sent the video of visa of the complainant's son on 22 Nov., 2023.

After that as per Travel Agent Randhir Singh, from bank account No. 512610010008860 in Punjab National Bank, the complainant issued cheque No.306508 dated 29.11.2023 for Rs.3,00,000/ 1 and cheque No.306510 dated 02.12.2023 for Rs.4,00,000/1 with his signatures given in his bank. That these cheques got transferred in the account of Sukhdeep Singh, partner of Randhir Singh above in account No.5126100100088860 with Punjab National Bank. When after giving all the money, the complainant demanded passport and visa of his son Kuldeep Singh, then Randhir Singh started making excuses, after which the complainant got checked the visa given by Randhir Singh on his own level and found the visa to be fake. He asked Randhir to return about Rs. 14,00,000/1, then Randhir Singh gave his bank account No.7013809651 cheque No.000018 dated 15.03.

2024 amounting to Rs.

the complainant and assured to return the balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/1 at the earliest. After that the complainant deposited the above cheque No.000018 dated 15.03.2024 in his above account, then the opposite party Randhir Singh got the payment of this cheque stopped. That this cheque got returned on dated 28.03.2024. After that Randhir Singh after span of much time also did not returned the money and also gave fake visa. Travel Agents Randhir Singh and Sukhdeep Singh have committed fraud of about Rs.14 lakh with the complainant. In this way, Randhir Singh and Sukhdeep Singh above by hatching a conspiracy, on the pretext of sending abroad Canada, got fake documents prepared and on the basis of wrongful facts and by committing fraud of about Rs.14 lakh with the complainant have committed cheating and fraud.

In this connection incident is made out to be of Jamalpur, Ludhiana. Therefore, after registration of case against opposite party Randhir Singh R/o House No.61, Village Badheri, Sector 411D, Chandigarh and Sukhdeep Singh R/o House No. 2776, Phase106, Mohali u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 1201B IPC, 24 Immigration Act at Police Station Jamalpur, Ludhiana, conducting deep enquiry is made out. In case during enquiry, involvement of somebody else comes in light, then on the basis of facts/proofs, action is required to be taken in the case. 11. Recommendation:1 If approved, then registration of case against opposite party Randhir Singh R/o House No.61, Village Badheri, Sector 411D, Chandigarh and Sukhdeep Singh R/o House No.

2776, Phase1 06, Mohali u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 1201B IPC, 24 Immigration Act at Police Station Jamalpur, Ludhiana, necessary order may be given to the SHO, P.S. Jamalpur, Ludhiana. Sd/1 Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Investigation, Ludhiana, dated 11.04.2025. Above complaint alongwith enquiry report for further action was sent to the worthy Deputy Commissioner of Police Investigation, Ludhiana, who after approving the above complaint alongwith enquiry report for further orders sent to the worthy Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, on which the worthy Commissioner of Police wrote with his pen, "Approved", Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana 14.04.2025 (878/PC/14/04/2025)."

, *1.%1.'*1 1 2%-3&( *( .-% 4%.'.'*1%5 6 #

( 5

5 8

(

8 55

5 ( 5

- 5

(

75 ( ( . -5 / ).-/* 8

(

.-/

$&+ $13

$3!

(

5 8 5

(

- 5

(

( 8

1 2%-3&( *( .-%

.3.% 6

( 5

/ !$+++++:4

7 #

6 /

13&7)') -

( ₹

5 !$+++++:4 5 5

5 #

;8 5

8 9 (

(

5 ( 8

5 (

# 8 ( ( 5

7 ;8 #

8 (

7 (

5 7 8 - 8

* # 5 5

prima facie

( 8 5 5

( 5

5 5 "

" ;<

5 #

5 (

9 (

(

5 #

(

" 7 5 84

=It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge1sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.

Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted.

There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment.

Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."

8 7

$%& '

58 7 (

7 7

5 # !"#$$

"We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded 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 material which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre1arrest 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 third1degree methods needs 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."

%8')'*1 -

# 8 5

5 > 5

( 5

4 - 8

( 5

(

( 5

(

# !$

Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No