Chamma Devi Chaturvedi vs State of U.T.

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—This order shall dispose of Criminal Misc. No. M-6688 of 2014 (Chamma Devi Chaturvedi v. State of U.T., Chandigarh and another) and Criminal Misc. No. M-6693 of 2014 (Bholeshwar Nath Chaturvedi v. State of U.T., Chandigarh and another) as both these petitions have been filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners therein in FIR No. 495 dated 30.8.2013, under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sector-17, Chandigarh.

Briefly noticed, the complainant-Company is M/s. Premier Acres Insfratect Private Limited. Allegations are against Naveen Chaturvedi i.e. son of the present petitioners who had been employed as an Accountant with the complainant-Company. Principal allegation in a nut-shell is with regard to Naveen Chaturvedi having embezzled a sum of Rs. 54 lacs and the modus operandi indicated was to short deposit the funds of the Company in the Bank and thereby to divert funds in his own account. Allegations are with regard to a financial fraud having been played by Naveen Chaturvedi with the complainant-Company, having forged signatures and having transferred a huge sum of money from the complainant-Company''s account and having diverted part of such money even in the accounts of his nears and dears including the present petitioners.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that insofar as Chamma Devi Chaturvedi i.e. petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. M-6688 of 2014 and mother of Naveen Chaturvedi is concerned, the only allegation is with regard to having purchased a house at Mathura with the alleged embezzled amount. In this regard, it has been contended that Chamma Devi was an account holder pertaining to Account No. 31722853709 with State Bank of India, Mathura from where the sale-consideration for purchase of the house has been paid and as per accounts statement, Annexure P1, along with Criminal Misc. No. M-6688 of 2014, a sum of Rs. 12 lacs had been received through RTGS and the same was not from the account of the complainant-Company, but had been credited by M/s. Rattan Jewellers to whom Chamma Devi had sold some gold/silver ornaments.

Insofar as Bholeshwar Nath Chaturvedi i.e. petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. M-6693 of 2014 and father of Naveen Chaturvedi is concerned, learned counsel would advert to a statement of account held by the petitioner pertaining to A/c No. 0314000109231754 with Punjab National Bank, Mathura and which would reflect a sum of Rs. 1,50,300/- that stood transferred into the account by the main accused Naveen Chaturvedi. It is contended that there was no reason and basis for the petitioner, namely, Bholeshwar Nath Chaturvedi to have suspected such money transferred by his son to be ill-gotten money.

In a nut-shell, learned counsel has argued that both the petitioners in these connected petitions have no role as regards having acted in connivance and in conspiracy with their son Naveen Chaturvedi with regard to the alleged embezzled amount belonging to the complainant-Company. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioners are entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

On 15.5.2014, the following order was passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. M-6688 of 2014:

"The principal accused is Naveen Chaturvedi, who has allegedly embezzled a huge amount by working as an Accountant with the complainant company.

The present petitioner is the mother of Naveen Chaturvedi. On 25.02.2014, this Court while issuing notice of motion had directed ad-interim protection to the petitioner subject to her joining investigation.

During the course of resumed hearing today, counsel appearing for the complainant would refer to a number of entries/transactions pertaining to the account held in State Bank of India, Mathura Branch by the present petitioner.

That apart, at Annexure P-1 along with the instant petition is an account statement pertaining to yet another account of the petitioner held in State Bank of India, Sector-17B, Chandigarh.

Hearing in the present petition is deferred to 29.5.2014.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to cooperate in the matter and to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed so to appear.

Counsel appearing for U.T. Chandigarh is directed to have a specific affidavit filed on or before the adjourned date by the Investigating Officer concerned with regard to the various credit entries in the accounts held by the petitioner in State Bank of India, Sector-17B, Chandigarh as also State Bank of India, Mathura Branch and any other accounts that may be held by the petitioner in her name. Such affidavit would also reflect as regards the source from which such credit entries are found in the name of the petitioner as per investigation conducted.

In the meanwhile, interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 25.02.2014 shall continue.

A copy of this order be given to counsel appearing for U.T. Chandigarh under the signatures of the Bench Secretary of this Court.

Similar directions were issued vide order of even date i.e. 15.5.2014 in Criminal Misc. No. M-6693 of 2014.

In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court on 15.5.2014, two separate affidavits, both dated 29.5.2014 of the Investigating Officer i.e. Sub Inspector Charanjit Singh, have been filed and placed on record in these two connected petitions.

As regards Chamma Devi Chaturvedi is concerned, she has been found to be holding an account with State Bank of India, Mathura and as per affidavit, an amount of Rs. 12 lacs was deposited in her account on 27.4.2011 through RTGS at the instance of Rattan Jewellers. That apart, an amount of Rs. 98,756/- has been deposited on 15.7.2013 by way of cheque from the complainant''s Company account. That apart, cash deposits in excess of Rs. 5 lacs are reflected for the period 27.4.2011 till 27.8.2011. At this stage, it would be apposite to even refer to the affidavit of the Investigating Officer filed in the connected petition i.e. Criminal Misc. No. M-6693 of 2014 by Bholeshwar Nath Chaturvedi i.e. the husband of Chamma Devi Chaturvedi. Such affidavit reflects that a sum of Rs. 11 lacs was withdrawn from the account of Bholeshar Nath Chaturvedi held with Dena Bank, Mathura between 23.4.2011 to 26.4.2011. It would be a matter of investigation to explore the link between withdrawal of Rs. 11 lacs from the account of Bholeshwar Nath Chaturvedi between 23.4.2011 to 26.4.2011 and deposit of Rs. 12 lacs in the account of Chamma Devi Chaturvedi on 27.4.2011 i.e. immediately thereafter, which even though, is stated to have been routed through Rattan Jewellers.

As regards Bholeshwar Nath Chaturvedi is concerned, the affidavit of the Investigating Officer belies the contention raised by the learned counsel that it was only a sum of Rs. 1,50,300/- that had been transferred by principal accused Naveen Chaturvedi in his account held in Punjab National Bank at Mathura. Such affidavit sheds light with regard to another account of Bholeshwar Nath i.e. account No. 079410004204 with Dena Bank, Mathura and which shows credits to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs on 13.12.2010, Rs. 5 lacs on 18.12.2010 and Rs. 3 lacs on 17.2.2011, all vide RTGS from the complainant Company''s account. That apart, there is also a credit of Rs. 3 lacs on 15.12.2010 regarding which the Investigating Officer has deposed that the source is still unclear.

In view of the facts and details noticed hereinabove, complicity and connivance of the petitioners herein in the alleged fraud and embezzlement committed by the son Naveen Chaturvedi cannot be ruled out. Further investigation would have to be conducted to unearth the truth in the matter. For such reason, custodial interrogation of the petitioners in these two connected petitions may be warranted.

The contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners claiming parity with Neelam Chaturvedi i.e. wife of principal accused Naveen Chaturvedi is wholly mis-placed. Undoubtedly, Neelam Chaturvedi has been granted protection as regards the arrest by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. However, the order dated 25.4.2014 passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1330 of 2014 would make it clear that the case of Neelam Chaturvedi was opined to be on a different footing in comparison to the other accused on the ground that she had got married to the principal accused, namely, Naveen Chaturvedi on 30.1.2012, whereas the principal accused was noticed to have started indulging in the alleged embezzlement from the year 2010. Accordingly, it had been observed that since the cases of the other accused stand on a different footing, the order granting protection to Neelam Chaturvedi would not be cited as a precedent in their cases.

In view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners in these connected petitions are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

Both the petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.