Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajbir Gehlawat And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 April, 2021CRM-M-50132-2019 -1-

(through video conferencing)

Date of Decision : 20.04.2021

Rajbir Gehlawat and another …. Petitioners


State of Haryana and others …. Respondents


Argued by: Mr. Akshat Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana.



The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for

seeking appropriate directions in FIR No.140 dated 25.02.2015/26.02.2015

registered under Sections 420/406/120-B/34 IPC, 1860 and Sections

4/42/76 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 at Police Station Sonipat, Haryana.

The case of the petitioners in brief as urged by the learned

counsel for the petitioners may be noticed as under:

That they had been made a scapegoat by one Raj Bala

(complainant) and certain other unknown persons with an

oblique motive to pressurize and extract money from them even

though they were not even remotely connected with any of the

alleged offences in the FIR in question and the investigating

agency and the complainant in collusion with each other had

1 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 03:37:42 :::
CRM-M-50132-2019 -2-

thereafter foisted a false and fabricated case upon them. It was

in fact the complainant Raj Bala, who befriended petitioner

No.2 Rani in the year 2014 and thereafter on winning her

confidence, lured her to invest her money in a “committee

business”, which was being run by the former. However, no

sooner did petitioner No.2 realise that Raj Bala-complainant

was illegally running the aforementioned business and had

been duping innocent people of large sums of money, she

immediately stopped investing her money in the committee. It

was thus, in this background that the complainant by way of a

pre-emptive move, in order to thwart any criminal case being

registered against her for her illegal activities, got the FIR in

question registered against the petitioners. Learned counsel has

also submitted that petitioner No.2 had lodged a complaint

against the complainant Raj Bala and her son, who is a police

official, on 17.12.2014 but to their dismay, the police officials

for reasons best known to them and rather obvious, failed to act

on her complaint. Thereafter, the petitioners were continuously

subjected to harassment and given threats of dire consequences

including false implication in cases. Subsequently, in the year

2016, the complainant Rajbala resolved and settled the dispute

with the petitioners wherein she gave an affidavit to the effect

that she did not want to continue with any proceedings against

them. It was therefore, urged that the factum of the

2 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 03:37:42 :::
CRM-M-50132-2019 -3-

complainant arriving at a settlement with the petitioners further

left no manner of doubt that the petitioners were indeed

innocent and had been victims of false implication at the hands

of complainant and the investigating agency.

Learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to

Annexure P-3 dated 27.09.2019, which was a communication sent to

petitioner No.2 Rani Gehlawat, wife of petitioner No.1- Rajbir Gehlawat

vide which she had been intimated by the Estate officer, HSVP Sonipat,

HSVP Complex, Sector-15, Sonipat, Haryana, that a letter had been

received from the Police Chowki, Sector 23, Sonipat on 04.03.2015 wherein

he had been directed not to permit the sale or transfer of various

immoveable properties including House No.1911, Sector 23, Sonipat.

Learned counsel has submitted that it was only on receipt of the

aforementioned communication it came to the notice of the petitioners that

the following properties had also been seized, attached or blocked from

being sold or transferred by the investigating agency:

Properties belonging to petitioner No.1:

i) Account bearing No.60441140129094, bank: HDFC

Bank, Branch: Gurgaon, Haryana.

ii) Mahindra XUV (Car) bearing No.HR 10U 2006

iii) Mahindra Quanto (Car) bearing No.HR 10 U 3323

iv) House No.1911, Sector 23, Sonipat, Haryana (owned

jointly by petitioners No.1 and 2)

3 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 03:37:42 :::
CRM-M-50132-2019 -4-

Properties belonging to petitioner No.2: i) House No.1911, Sector 23, Sonipat, Haryana (owned

jointly by petitioners No.1 and 2)

ii) Shop No.19, Sector 23, Sonipat, Haryana

iii) DSO No.25, Sector 23, Sonipat, Haryana

iv) Plot No.1983, Sector 23, Sonipat, Haryana

v) Ford Eco Sport (Car) bearing No.HR 10 V 4060

vi) Account bearing No.107810011060729; Bank: Andhra

Bank; Branch: Vasant Kunj, New Delhi

Learned counsel has contended it was totally false and

incorrect that the above-mentioned moveable and immoveable properties

had been purchased after duping Raj Bala-complainant and others of their

money, which found credence from the fact that petitioner No.1 had been

declared innocent by the investigating agency during the investigation of the

FIR in question and no challan had been presented against him. Learned

counsel thus, submitted that it was indeed strange that even though

petitioner No.1 was declared innocent yet his moveable and immoveable

properties had been ordered to be seized and attached illegally. Learned

counsel has further submitted that as far as house No.1191, Sector 23,

Sonipat is concerned though it was owned jointly by both the petitioners,

however, the said house was purchased by them way back in the year 2006

and it was also a matter of record that it was petitioner No.1, who had been

paying monthly installments to repay the loan raised by him for the purchase

of the said property. Learned counsel placed reliance upon Nevada

Properties Private Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & another (Crl. Appeal

4 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 03:37:42 :::
CRM-M-50132-2019 -5-

No.1481 of 2019) wherein the Supreme Court held in no uncertain terms

that immoveable property could not be seized or attached by the

investigating agency under Section 102 Cr.PC. It was also urged that the

properties qua which intimation had been sent by the investigating agency

for attachment were not even case property nor was there any report sent to

the Judicial Magistrate as required under Section 102 Cr.PC with respect to

the attachment of the properties. Moreover, since petitioner No.1 was

innocent, no order for attachment of his properties could have been made,

which on the face of it was an illegal order.

On being put to notice, replies by way of separate affidavits

dated 25.01.2020, 04.03.2021 and 03.04.2021 respectively were filed by the

State. Learned State counsel has submitted that the FIR in question, which

was registered on the complaint made by the complainant Raj Bala, was

thoroughly investigated into. During investigation, it came to light that

petitioner No.2 along with her husband i.e. petitioner No.1 had lured the

complainant and others to invest money in their Chit Fund business, by

giving false assurance of handsome returns. Resultantly, the complainant

Raj Bala on being taken in by their false promise and allurement, invested a

total amount of Rs.39,00,662/-. When the complainant Rajbala demanded

back her money, both the petitioners extended threats to her by boasting of

their high contacts and the fact that since petitioner No.1 was an advocate,

he was well-versed with the legal nitty gritties. It was also stated by the

State counsel that petitioner No.2 had cheated about 50-60 other innocent

families in the same manner to the tune of approximately Rs.4 crores by

5 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 03:37:42 :::
CRM-M-50132-2019 -6-

luring them to invest their hard earned money in the chit fund business

being run by them and with the ill-gotten money, the petitioners had then

purchased moveable and immoveable properties, already detailed

hereinabove. Hence, it was urged that the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioners that a false case had been planted upon them at

the behest of the complainant was totally misleading and belied by the

material and other evidence, which had been collected by the investigating

agency subsequent to the registration of the FIR in question. Learned State

counsel submitted that it was in this background that vide Annexure R-2

(annexed with reply dated 04.03.2021), a communication dated 27.03.2015

was sent by the investigating agency to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat

asking him for the attachment of the following properties of petitioner No.2:

i) House No.1983, Sector 23, Sonipat, Haryana

ii) House No.1911, Sector 23, Sonipat, Haryana

iii) Shop No.19, Sector 23, Sonipat, Haryana

iv) Shop No.25, Sector 23, Sonipat, Haryana

v) Plot No.476, Omaxe Limited

Learned State counsel also controverted the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioners that they had been cooperating with the

investigating agency. It was submitted that in fact petitioner No.2 was

untraceable for quite sometime subsequent to the registration of the FIR in

question, as a result of which, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.PC were

also initiated against her. He further submitted that petitioner No.2

thereafter did join the investigation but only after issuance of non-bailable

6 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 03:37:42 :::
CRM-M-50132-2019 -7-

warrants. However, she had not been coooperating with the investigating

agency during the investigation. Learned counsel for the State submitted

that as far as petitioner No.1 was concerned since no incriminating evidence

had come to light against him and their son, both of them were declared

innocent in the case and thus, challan not presented against petitioner No.1.

Learned State counsel referred to the following observations made by this

Court vide order dated 08.03.2021:

” …..This Court is rather shocked at the manner in
which the investigating agency has investigated the case
with such wide ramifications wherein innocent and
vulnerable people had been prima facie duped of their
hard earned money. This Court is being compelled to
observe that the manner in which the investigating
agency has investigated the case in question, smacks of
malafides. On the one hand, the investigating agency
has sought to attach the properties of the petitioners
more specifically those belonging to petitioner no.1 and
on the other hand, has gone ahead by declaring him to
be innocent, even though as submitted by the State in
their reply and reiterated by the State counsel that all
these properties had been purchased by the petitioners
from the crime money. Prima facie, it does appear that
the investigating agency is trying to soft pedal the issue
and has intentionally left gaping holes during the
investigation which without a doubt could enure to the
benefit of the accused persons in the long run.
This Court has thus, no hesitation in
observing that the standard of investigation in the case
in question reflects a very sorry state of affairs. The
manner in which the matter has been investigated

7 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 03:37:42 :::
CRM-M-50132-2019 -8-

requires a thorough probe. Petitioner No.1, who is the
husband of petitioner No.2, has been shown to be in
possession/ ownership of the properties, as per reply
filed by the State and as also reiterated by the State
counsel, purportedly purchased and procured from the
crime money. The two limbs of the State plea that the
properties belonging to petitioner No.1 were purchased
out of the ill-gotten wealth accumulated by his wife i.e.
petitioner no.2 and that petitioner No.1 is innocent
cannot stand together as they are mutually exclusive.
In the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court deems it fit that Director General of Police,
Haryana be directed to file an affidavit to explain how
the aforementioned pleas of the State can be

Learned State counsel while referring to the affidavit dated

03.04.2021 filed by Director General of Police, Haryana pursuant to the

aforementioned observations of this Court submitted that the ASP, Gohana,

Sonipat was assigned by the Superintendent of Police, Gohana, Sonipat to

scrutinize the nature and quality of the investigation done in the case. The

ASP, Gohana thereafter submitted a detailed report wherein she pointed out

that the investigation was deficient, in particular, qua the exoneration of

petitioner No.1 for which initiation of disciplinary proceedings had been

recommended against the erring police officials as the collusion of the

police officials with the petitioners(accused) could not be ruled out.

Learned State counsel submitted that in the wake of the aforementioned,

there was every likelihood of a supplementary challan being filed against

petitioner No.1 in the near future. He further submitted that the case was

8 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 03:37:42 :::
CRM-M-50132-2019 -9-

now fixed for framing of charges before the Court of Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Sonipat. Learned State counsel vehemently reiterated that all

the moveable and immovable properties had been procured by the

petitioners with the crime money. He thus, submitted that once

communication dated 27.03.2015 (Annexure R-2) had been sent to the

Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat, the investigating agency could not be

faulted with, as the provisions of Section 102 Cr.PC. stood complied with.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all the

material on record.

Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce

Section 102 Cr.PC, which is as under:

“102. Power of police officer to seize certain property.

1. Any police officer, may seize any property which may be
alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may
be found under circumstances which create suspicion of
the commission of any offence.
2. Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge
of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to
that officer.
3. Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall
forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having
jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it
cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, he may
give custody thereof to any person on his executing a
bond undertaking to produce the property before the
Court as and when required and to give effect to the
further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the

9 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 03:37:42 :::
CRM-M-50132-2019 -10-

A perusal of the aforementioned Section reveals that for

attracting Section 102 Cr.PC, the properties, which are being sought to be

seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have some

nexus with the offence in question. Hence, the provision of Section 102

Cr.PC can without a doubt be invoked only with respect to such properties

which may have a connection with an offence.

In the case in hand, though the State in two of its replies dated

25.01.2020 and 04.03.2021 respectively had conceded that petitioner No.1

and his son Chirag were found innocent and no incriminating material had

come to light against them during the investigation but in the third affidavit

dated 03.04.2021 filed by the Director General of Police, Haryana, it has

admitted that the investigation into the matter had been shoddy leading to

the exoneration of petitioner No.1, for which disciplinary proceedings had

been recommended against the erring officials and there was a likelihood of

a report under Section 173 (8) Cr.PC being filed in Court against petitioner


It is certainly not the case of the petitioners that any of their

properties including House No.1191, Sector 23, Sonipat have been seized or

sealed by the investigating agency. In the instant case, only a

communication dated 27.03.2015 (Annexure R-2) was sent by the

investigating officer to the Estate Officer asking him not to grant permission

to the petitioners to transfer or sell the property in question. It may be

noticed from the memo of parties of this petition that both the petitioners are

still residing in House No.1191, Sector 23, Sonipat. No doubt, Nevada

10 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 03:37:42 :::
CRM-M-50132-2019 -11-

(supra) clearly lays down that the investigating agency cannot dispossess a

person from his immovable property, however, nowhere does it say that the

investigating agency is prohibited from seizing documents etc. relating to

immoveable property which may have some link with the commission of an

offence. In the instant case, neither have the premises of the petitioners been

sealed or seized and nor have the petitioners been dispossessed as conceded.

Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has even conceded that the

original title deeds of the aforementioned properties were in the possession

of the petitioners, leading to a conclusion that in fact the properties in

question were not attached. Mere mention of the word “attachment” by the

police officials in the communication dated 27.03.2015 sent to the Estate

Office, HSVP, Sonipat will be of no consequence, as the prohibition

regarding sale of the case properties is in order, and to prevent third party

rights from being created with respect to the properties linked with the

offences. A reading of the above communication dated 27.03.2015 and

Annexure R-5 with the affidavit dated 04.03.2021 filed by the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, City Sonipat reveals that the sale of the above

properties was sought to be prevented as petitioner No.2 was not

cooperating with the investigating agency, and there appears to be a genuine

apprehension that the properties could change hands, leading to further

complications. Every law derives its legitimacy from justice, and justice

should be the end product. Clever drafting and legal devices cannot be

allowed to perpetrate injustice. It may be noticed that the prayer clause is

couched in a language which is vague and is an attempt to pre-empt further

11 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 03:37:42 :::
CRM-M-50132-2019 -12-

investigation and seeks to include reliefs, which are on an unsure footing, as

the petitioners are themselves not sure or are evasive about the fact whether

the properties have been seized/ attached/blocked or not.

From the above, it is apparent that there has been no violation

of Section 102 Cr.PC as alleged by the petitioners, in view of which, the

present petition stands dismissed.

20.04.2021 JUDGE

Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes

12 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 03:37:42 :::


Leave a Reply

Sign In


Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.