Ajay Singh vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

These two petitions have been filed with reference to the same F.I.R. and are disposed of by this common order, though they were heard separately.

Ajay Singh (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. 7807M1999) and Sanjeev Katyal, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tohana and Rajinder Kumar Bathla, Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Tohana (petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. 6358M of 1999) had approached the Sessions Court, Hissar, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for bail in anticipation of arrest but were declined the relief. Therefore, they have come with these petitions respectively before this Court for the said relief.

F.I.R. No. 379 dated 12.12.1998 came to be registered at Police Station City Tohana for offences under Sections 467/471/420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, on the statement of Mrs. Jagdeep Kaur Cheema (hereinafter referred to as the complainant). The allegations in the statement made by the complainant are as follows :

The complainant is the widow of Vikram Singh, who died in Sept. 1997 leaving behind the complainant and a minor daughter by name Mehrab.

The family owns substantial properties in the form of agricultural land, houses, and movable properties in the form of cash jewellery etc. After the death of Vikram Singh in a family settlement, it was settled that Rs. 8 lakhs of the share of the complainant and her minor daughter in the movable property and the share in the crops for 199798, be deposited in the name of minor Mehrab by 10 June 1998, but there was no settlement with regard to the share of the complainant and her daughter in the immoveable property.

On 6.6.1998 PetitionerAjay Singh, the brother of Vikram Singh (husband of the complainant) was entrusted to deposit Rs. 8 lakhs in the name of minor Mehrab in any bank at Tohana for ten years. Petitioner Ajay Singh was told to hand over the Special Term Deposit Receipts (hereinafter referred to as S.T.D. Receipts) to the complainant but, PetitionerAjay Singh, to cheat the complainant and minor Mehrab in conspiracy with the bank employees i.e. the bank manager, the clerks concerned of the State Bank of India, Tohana, the Legal Advisor to the bank and certain other family members, deposited the amount under four S.T.D. Receipts of the face value of Rs. two lakhs. Photostat copies of the S.T.D. Receipts were handed over to the complainant, and PetitionerAjay Singh told that he will hand over the original at a later date to the complainant.

But PetitionerAjay Singh in order to cause loss and damage to the complainant and her daughter in conspiracy with the Branch Manager, the concerned clerks, the legal advisor and other family members, has got altered the amount in the S.T.D. receipts into his own account by forging certain entries in the bank record. The bank was a mere trustee for the minor''s amount and no property can be transferred from the name of the minor without the prior permission and order from the competent Court. The transfer entries now made in respect of the said S.T.D. Receipts is a forgery of the bank records to cause damage to the interest of the minor. Petitioner Ajay Singh committed forgery of public records. Complainant has also filed Civil Suit No. 262 for injunction against Ajay Singh etc. and the State Bank of India, Tohana. The State Bank of India, Tohana, entered appearance through counsel and an order of injunction has been passed against the defendants in that case.

It is on these allegations that the F.I.R. in question came to be registered. Petitioner Ajay Singh and the other petitioners who are the bank officials have, therefore, prayed for being released on bail in anticipation of arrest.

The contention of the PetitionerAjay Singh is that he and his mother agreed to pay Rs. 8 lakhs as lump sum amount for settlement of all the disputes regarding the property of Vikram Singh and it was decided to deposit this sum in the name of minor Mehrab for her welfare and maintenance, that PetitionerAjay Singh and his other family members sold certain agricultural lands for Rs. 8,65,000/, and that the PetitionerAjay Singh deposited a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs with the State Bank of India, Tohana, on 6.6.1998 in S.T.D. Receipts in the name of minor Mehrab as a security on the condition that the Civil Suits and Criminal cases filed by the complainant would be withdrawn. Petitioner Ajay Singh contends that the complainant refused to settle the disputes and withdraw the cases but increased the demand. According to the PetitionerAjay Singh since his family could not spare more amount, petitioner got diverted this amount to his account and then kept the same in the bank as F.D.R. According to the PetitionerAjay Singh this complaint is a false one and that no offence is made out, since he had offered this amount as a family settlement, and that no amount was given by the complainant to him as entrustment. Petitioner Ajay Singh also contends that he did not withdraw a penny out of the bank and had not committed any forgery. Petitioner Ajay Singh also contends that in the Civil Suit filed by the complainant he had given an undertaking that he is ready to pay Rs. 8 lakhs for the full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant, and there is no intention to cheat or misappropriate the amount. He also contends that the original documents are already with the police and the amount is also lying in tact in the bank while the Civil Court is already seized of the matter regarding disbursement of the amount.

Petitioner Ajay Singh also contends that at the time of depositing the amount with the State Bank of India, Tohana, he had given in writing to the Bank as follows :

"Sir,

I have a family settlement with my brother''s wife and the same has likely to be matured upto 8 lac. So, I intends to deposit Rs. 8,00,000/ as F.D. in the name of my niece Mehrab if settlement does not come mature then I shall get my money back because I am depositing the said amount on my own accord as guardian of minor Mehrab. So, in these circumstances the FDR of Rs. 8,00,000/ be prepared in the name of my niece Mehrab minor. In case of final settlement I will bring my brother''s wife Jagdeep in the bank for necessary signatures etc."

Petitioner Ajay Singh also contends that he has given another letter to the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Tohana, as follows :

"In connection with my earlier application I would like to inform you that a family settlement with my brother''s wife has not been matured, so, as per my earlier application the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/ should be returned back to me for this purpose my name should be added in the FDR and the same be released in my favour because I had deposited the said amount in the name of my niece Mehrab being her uncle and guardian."

Therefore, the PetitionerAjay Singh contends that the amount was paid to him into his saving''s bank account and then converted into fixed deposit receipt in his name, which is still in the bank. Therefore, in these circumstances PetitionerAjay Singh contends that he is entitled to the relief of bail.

Similarly the other two petitioners who are the officials of the bank concerned claim that PetitionerAjay Singh approached the bank for deposit the amount in S.T.D. Receipt and when he was asked to get the signatures of minor''s mother, PetitionerAjay Singh promised to get signatures if the settlement was ultimately finalised, when the S.T.D. Receipts are to be given to the minor and her mother. These petitioners also urged that in case of failure of settlement petitionerAjay Singh was entitled to get return of the money as he was depositing the money realised from the sale of the land. These petitioners also claim that on 10.6.1998 PetitionerAjay Singh informed the bank that he wanted payment of the amount as the family settlement had not matured, and on his representation the amount was credited into savings bank account and then converted into F.D. Receipts in the name of petitioner Ajay Singh on 9.10.1998 These petitioners also contended that in view of the dispute between petitioner Ajay Singh and complainant, Civil Suit No. 262 dated 7.9.1998 was filed in the Civil Court at Tohana. These petitioners also contend that they gave an undertaking in the Civil Suit that the amount shall not be disbursed to any one except according to the decision in the Civil Suit filed by the complainant. They also contend that they have already joined the investigation and that entire record of the bank in original has already been handed over to the police, and no recovery or discovery is to be made. These petitioners claim that no case of cheating or fraud or criminal breach of trust is made out against them.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides.

It is seen that there is dispute between the widow and minor daughter of deceased Vikram Singh on the one hand and petitionerAjay Singh and the other family members of the family with regard to the properties left by Vikram Singh, who was the brother of PetitionerAjay Singh. It is also seen that there was a family settlement in which PetitionerAjay Singh had undertaken to deposit Rs. 8 lakhs in the bank in the Fixed Deposit in the name of Mehrab the minor daughter of the said Vikram Singh. Accordingly he had deposited the amount under four S.T.D. Receipts of Rs. 2 lakhs each.

Even at that time PetitionerAjay Singh had informed the bank about family settlement which is likely to be matured and that he wants to deposit Rs. 8 lakhs in the name of his niece Mehrab. He had also informed that if the settlement does not mature, he shall get the money back since he was depositing the amount on his own accord as guardian of the minor. He had also informed the bank that in case of family settlement he will bring the complainant to the bank for necessary signatures. Subsequently he had informed the bank that the final settlement did not mature and the amount may be transferred in his name. The contention of the complainant is that this amount was not deposited as security as contended by the PetitionerAjay Singh but it was the share of the complainant and her minor daughter in the moveables and the crops of the year 199798. The learned counsel for the complainant contends that once the money was deposited in the name of the minor, neither PetitionerAjay Singh was entitled to get it back nor the bank was entitled to transfer the amount to the name of PetitionerAjay Singh either in the saving bank account or in the F.D. account. According to the learned counsel for the complainant this has been done to cheat and defraud the complainant and her minor daughter. But the contention of the petitioners is that the money was deposited by PetitionerAjay Singh, by specifically informing that he was depositing the amount on his own accord on the hope that the family settlement will immature and as the family settlement did not mature, PetitionerAjay Singh was entitled to get back the money. According to the PetitionerAjay Singh, the family settlement did not mature since the complainant did not withdraw the complaint and the civil suit and, therefore, he had requested the bank to transfer the money into his saving bank and then to invest it in Fixed Deposit account in his own name. The petitioners also claimed that the money is still with the bank and has not been withdrawn by PetitionerAjay Singh. They also contend that therefore, no offence of cheating, defrauding or criminal misappropriating money arises.

It is also seen that the civil suit is also pending with regard to the claims of the complainant and her daughter and it is contended on behalf of the bank official that an undertaking has also been given to the Civil Court at Tohana that the amount will be deposited as per the orders of the Court.

When PetitionerAjay Singh moved Criminal Misc. No. 7807M of 1999 for bail, while ordering notice, this Court directed that the sum of Rs. 8 lacks in bank with whatever interest that had accrued should be sent to this Court in the name of the Registrar of this Court, so that the money can be kept in this Court or invested with regard to which orders could be passed subsequently. It was also ordered that PetitionerAjay Singh should not be arrested in the meanwhile. The office note indicates that accordingly a demand draft of Rs. 8,21,610/ in the name of Registrar of this Court has been received by the Registrar. Therefore, the money had not been taken away by the PetitionerAjay Singh, and was with the bank. It has also come to this Court. While the complainant contends that this amount represents the share of herself and her minor daughter in the moveable property and crops, petitioner Ajay Singh contends that it was only deposited by him from the sale of the family lands as security as per the terms of the family settlement. Civil Suits are also pending with regard to the claims of the complainant and her minor daughter in the properties of deceased Vikram Singh and also with regard to this amount. Therefore, in these circumstances, any opinion expressed with regard to the rival contentions of the complainant on the one side and the petitioners on the other side will affect the above said proceedings. Taking into consideration the fact that the money which was lying in the bank only though in Fixed Deposit in the name of the PetitionerAjay Singh and has also come to this Court with interest, I am of the opinion that the petitioners should be granted bail. This is also especially so when it is stated that the petitioners have joined investigation and all the documents in original have been taken possession of by the police. Therefore, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to the relief of bail.

In the result, both the applications are allowed.

If the petitioners in both the petitions are sought to be arrested on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in these petitions they shall be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. However, the petitioners shall abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the petitioners are needed for any further investigation, the police shall give notice giving them sufficient time to join investigation, and the petitioners shall associate themselves with the investigation if and when called for accordingly.

The sum of Rs. 8,21,610/ received by way of demand draft by the Registrar of this Court, will be invested by the Registrar of this Court, in Fixed Deposit for a period of five years in the name of minor Mehrab, in any of the nationalised banks, at Chandigarh. If the civil suit with regard to the claims of the complainant and the minor is decided, it will be open to the parties to get the money sent to the concerned Civil Court which decides the claims so that the amount can be disbursed by that Court. If the claims are settled between the parties mutually outside the Court, then it will be open to the parties to move this Court for appropriate orders.

Applications allowed.