Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2021CRM-M-29233-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-24397-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-39764-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-40657-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-3105-2021(O&M); and
CRM-M-7881-2021(O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRM-M-29233-2020(O&M)
Harwinder Singh
…… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
…… Respondent
2. CRM-M-24397-2020(O&M)
Kuldeep Kaur
…… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
…… Respondent
3. CRM-M-39764-2020(O&M)
Savita Khanna
…… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
…… Respondent
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 21:23:11 :::
CRM-M-29233-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-24397-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-39764-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-40657-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-3105-2021(O&M); and
CRM-M-7881-2021(O&M) -:2:-
4. CRM-M-40657-2020(O&M)
Gurdial Singh
…… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
…… Respondent
5. CRM-M-3105-2021(O&M)
Purnima
…… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
…… Respondent
6. CRM-M-7881-2021(O&M)
Sant Bhupinder Singh
…… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
…… Respondents
Date of decision :-4.3.2021
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
***
2 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 21:23:12 :::
CRM-M-29233-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-24397-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-39764-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-40657-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-3105-2021(O&M); and
CRM-M-7881-2021(O&M) -:3:-
Present: Mr.G.S. Brar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-29233-2020,
CRM-M-40657-2020 and CRM-M-7881-2021.
Mr.Navjot Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-24397-2020.
Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-39764-2020.
Mr.Sunny K. Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-3105-2021.
Mr.S.S. Brar, Advocate
for the complainant.
Mr.J.S. Ghuman, DAG, Punjab.
***
H.S. MADAAN, J.
Vide this order, I shall dispose of total six petitions, five of
which for grant of pre-arrest bail i.e. CRM-M-29233-2020 filed by
petitioner Harwinder Singh, CRM-M-24397-2020 filed by petitioner
Kuldeep Kaur, CRM-M-39764-2020 filed by petitioner Savita Khanna,
CRM-M-40657-2020 filed by petitioner Gurdial Singh and CRM-M-3105-
2021 filed by petitioner Purnima, all of them being accused in FIR No.114
dated 29.7.2020, under Sections 420, 408, 120-B IPC, registered with Police
Station Payal, District Khanna and a petition i.e. CRM-M-7881-2021
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner – Sant Bhupinder Singh for re-
investigation of the above-said FIR.
3 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 21:23:12 :::
CRM-M-29233-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-24397-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-39764-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-40657-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-3105-2021(O&M); and
CRM-M-7881-2021(O&M) -:4:-
Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the prosecution story
are that complainant Rajender Singh Dhillon, Managing Director, SMS
Memorial School, Jarg, resident of 178, Model Town, Jalandhar had
submitted a written complaint dated 13.8.2019 against Gurdial Singh,
Purnima Sharma, Harwinder Singh, Savita Khanna, Kuldeep Kaur
addressed to Director General of Police, which was marked to SSP, Khanna;
thereafter it was marked to SP(Headquarters), Khanna, who had conducted
the investigation and submitted report to SSP, Khanna, who sought legal
opinion and thereafter formal FIR in the matter was recorded. The
investigation in the case started.
Apprehending their arrest in this case, petitioners/accused
Gurdial Singh, Purnima Sharma, Harwinder Singh, Savita Khanna, Kuldeep
Kaur had approached the Court of Sessions seeking grant of pre-arrest bail
but their such applications were dismissed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. As such, they have approached this
Court asking for similar relief by way of filing separate petitions.
Notice of the petitions was given to the respondent – State, who
put in appearance through counsel. The complainant has also appeared
through counsel.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the record.
4 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 21:23:12 :::
CRM-M-29233-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-24397-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-39764-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-40657-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-3105-2021(O&M); and
CRM-M-7881-2021(O&M) -:5:-
First coming to petitions for pre-arrest bail CRM-M-29233-
2020 filed by petitioner Harwinder Singh, CRM-M-24397-2020 filed by
petitioner Kuldeep Kaur, CRM-M-39764-2020 filed by petitioner Savita
Khanna, CRM-M-40657-2020 filed by petitioner Gurdial Singh and CRM-
M-3105-2021 filed by petitioner Purnima.
Vide detailed order of this Court dated 28.10.2020 observing
that dispute involved in the case is with regard to management of a school
i.e. SMS Memorial Public School, Jarg, District Ludhiana, regarding which
litigation is pending, Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range was
directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team (hereinafter referred to
as SIT) within a period of 15 days from the date of order and thereafter SIT
was required to probe the matter and submit report within a period of two
months thereafter.
In compliance of that order, a SIT was constituted to conduct
the investigation, which comprised Ms.Alka Meena, IPS, Senior
Superintendent of Police as Chairperson, Sh.Wazir Singh, PPS,
Superintendent of Police(Detective), SBS Nagar and Sh.Rajesh Kumar,
PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Hq), Ludhiana Rural as Members.
The team recorded statements of various persons and perused the record and
submitted detailed report running into more than 80 pages. The SIT had
recorded statement of complainant – Rajender Singh Dhillon, Principal –
5 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 21:23:12 :::
CRM-M-29233-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-24397-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-39764-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-40657-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-3105-2021(O&M); and
CRM-M-7881-2021(O&M) -:6:-
Gurinderpal Singh, Harvinder Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-29233-2020),
Savita Khanna (petitioner in CRM-M-39764-2020), Kuldeep Kaur
(petitioner in CRM-M-24397-2020), Gurdial Singh (petitioner in CRM-
M-40657-2020), Manager/Sewadar – Sant Bhupinder Singh (petitioner in
CRM-M-7881-2021) and various other persons. The conclusion drawn by
the SIT, which is important to be noticed is reproduced as under:
From the entire inquiry it is revealed that SMS Memorial Pubic
School Jarg is run by Guru Nanak Dev Health & Education Society
Jarg in which Sant Bhupinder Singh was appointed as Chairman in
2017 and Rajinder Singh Dhillon was M.D. Principal of the school
was Gurinderpal Singh. According to Guru Nanak Dev Health &
Education memorandum the authority to appoint Principal in the
school vested with M.D. Gurdial Singh who was close relative of Sant
Bhupinder Singh used to come to gurudwara Jarg. Sant Bhupinder
Singh submitted his resignation from the post of Chairman of society
on 04-03-2017 which was accepted by the society after the due
proceeding. Thereafter Sant Bhupinder Singh and Gurdial Singh had
differences with Principal Gurinderpal Singh and management. On
that Gurdial Singh alongwith followers of Gurudwara Sahib sacked
Principal Gurinderpal Singh from the post of Principal on 16-05-
2017 and obtained his signature on resignation. Thereafter Sant
6 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 21:23:12 :::
CRM-M-29233-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-24397-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-39764-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-40657-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-3105-2021(O&M); and
CRM-M-7881-2021(O&M) -:7:-
Bhupinder Singh handed over the control of the school to Gurdial
Singh. Thereafter Gurdial Singh by bypassing the rule of society
appointed Poornima Sharma in the school. Sant Bhupinder Singh
who is Chairman of Baba Daya Singh trust had the knowledge that
authority to appoint the Principal in the school is vested with M.D.
but he and Gurdial Singh while not considering the rule of the society
and required education qualification for the post of Principal
appointed Savita Khanna as the Principal of the school and she was
given appointment letter from Bhai Daya Singh Trust. The school
fees of the students were collected by clerk Harwinder Singh and due
to the reason that Savita Khanna was not qualified B.ed. therefore
Kuldeep Kaur was appointed as working Principal who kept on
marking her presence in the capacity of Punjabi teacher. All these
had knowledge of the rules of the society that amount collected in the
school is to be deposited to in the bank account of school. But they all
by violating the rules of the society the fees from 16-05-2017 to 22-
02-2018 was collected in cash and expenses of the school were also
incurred in cash. They also did not maintain the record properly. All
of them have given different statements in different inquiries in order
to save their skins. Therefore Gurdial Singh, Sant Bhupinder Singh,
Poornima Sharma, Harwinder Singh, Savita Khanna and Kuldeep
7 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 21:23:12 :::
CRM-M-29233-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-24397-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-39764-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-40657-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-3105-2021(O&M); and
CRM-M-7881-2021(O&M) -:8:-
Kaur who were well aware of the rules of the society and also
knowing that school is run by registered society according to
established rules have completely ignored it and all of them are held
responsible for non maintenance of record of fees together with
irresponsible behaviour and embezzlement of amount. Case has been
found to be registered on real facts. Therefore it is recommended that
challan against above named and anyone else who may be held
responsible during further investigation be presented before the Ld.
Court.
The SIT comprising senior police officers have submitted a
detailed and well reasoned report associating petitioners/accused Gurdial
Singh, Purnima Sharma, Harwinder Singh, Savita Khanna, Kuldeep Kaur
and Sant Bhupinder Singh regarding their statement containing their
versions. It had considered the depositions of other concerned persons also
besides the relevant record and then concluded that Gurdial Singh, Sant
Bhupinder Singh, Purnima Sharma, Harwinder Singh, Savita Khanna and
Kuldeep Kaur while being aware of rules of society and having knowledge
that school is being run by registered society according to established rules,
ignoring those rules did not maintain record of fees collected from students
of the school and showed irresponsible behaviour. They have been held to
be guilty of embezzlement of the amounts so collected by them. The
8 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 21:23:12 :::
CRM-M-29233-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-24397-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-39764-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-40657-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-3105-2021(O&M); and
CRM-M-7881-2021(O&M) -:9:-
complaint submitted to the police by the complainant was found to have
merit.
Under the circumstances, petitioners/accused Gurdial Singh,
Purnima Sharma, Harwinder Singh, Savita Khanna, Kuldeep Kaur are
facing serious allegations of having committed various offences including
embezzlement of the money belonging to the school.
Pre arrest bail is a discretionary relief and is to be granted in
exceptional cases and not in routine. It is meant to save the innocent persons
from harassment and inconvenience and not to screen the culprits from
arrest and custodial interrogation.
The custodial interrogation of the petitioners/accused Gurdial
Singh, Purnima Sharma, Harwinder Singh, Savita Khanna, Kuldeep Kaur is
definitely required to effect the recovery of the embezzled amount and to
find out as to how the scam was planned and executed and role played by
the petitioners/accused and others therein. In case custodial interrogation of
the petitioners is denied to the investigating agency that would leave many
loose ends and gaps in the investigation affecting the investigation being
carried out adversely, which is not called for.
In case of State represented by the C.B.I. Versus Anil
Sharma, 1997(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 268, Hon’ble Apex Court had observed
that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than
9 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 21:23:12 :::
CRM-M-29233-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-24397-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-39764-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-40657-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-3105-2021(O&M); and
CRM-M-7881-2021(O&M) -:10:-
questioning a suspect who is on anticipatory bail, in a case like this
interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in getting
useful informations.
Therefore, no case for grant of pre-arrest bail to
petitioners/accused Harwinder Singh, Kuldeep Kaur, Savita Khanna,
Gurdial Singh and Purnima is made out.
Thus, CRM-M-29233-2020 filed by petitioner Harwinder
Singh, CRM-M-24397-2020 filed by petitioner Kuldeep Kaur, CRM-M-
39764-2020 filed by petitioner Savita Khanna, CRM-M-40657-2020 filed
by petitioner Gurdial Singh and CRM-M-3105-2021 filed by petitioner
Purnima stand dismissed.
With regard to CRM-1816-2021 in CRM-M-29233-2020 and
CRM-1859-2021 in CRM-M-40657-2020 filed on behalf of the
complainant for vacation of interim orders dated 28.10.2020 and 8.12.2020,
respectively due to the reason that the petitioners in that petitions are
violating the conditions of interim bail and misusing the same to pressurize
the investigating team as well as the complainant, since the petitions for pre
arrest bail filed by such petitioners have been dismissed, such applications
have become infructuous and are dismissed as such.
Now coming to CRM-M-7881-2021 filed by petitioner Sant
Bhupinder Singh. The investigation in this case has been carried out by SIT
10 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 21:23:12 :::
CRM-M-29233-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-24397-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-39764-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-40657-2020(O&M);
CRM-M-3105-2021(O&M); and
CRM-M-7881-2021(O&M) -:11:-
comprising senior police officers and the report submitted by them is not
found to be suffering from any illegality or infirmity, rather the same is
quite detailed and well reasoned. There is no ground for directing re-
investigation in the FIR as prayed for by petitioner Sant Bhupinder Singh.
As regards the apprehension expressed by petitioner with
regard to physical harm being caused to him by private respondents No.7 to
10, he may approach Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana in that
regard and SSP, Ludhiana if finds that the apprehension has got any element
of merit then after assessing the threat perception, he may take suitable
action in the matter in accordance with law.
With the abovesaid observations, CRM-M-7881-2021 filed
by petitioner Sant Bhupinder Singh stands disposed of accordingly.
( H.S. MADAAN )
4.3.2021 JUDGE
Brij
1. Whether reportable? No
2. Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2021 21:23:12 :::
Comments