KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner invokes inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for transfer of the investigation of the case FIR No.345/2006 under Sections 420/406 IPC registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar to some other independent agency, like CBI.

(2.) IN nutshell, the case of the Petitioner, who is the complainant in the earlier said FIR, is that the Petitioner was carrying on the business of insurance and a financial advisor in his office at L-2/103, New Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi. Mr. Amarjit Singh Chatwal, Harprit Singh Jolly @ Rajinder Singh Jolly @ Harman Gill and Paramjit Singh came to his (Petitioner's) office on 15.05.2003 and offered him to become a sub- agent of accused Amarjit Singh Chatwal who is an agent of PNB Housing Finance Ltd. Since the proposal given by the earlier said Amarjit Singh Chatwal and others appeared to be attractive, the Petitioner became the sub-agent of Amarjit Singh Chatwal of PNB Housing Finance Ltd. The Petitioner referred 8-9 cases of grant of loan to accused Amarjit Singh Chatwal and Rajinder Singh Jolly in his capacity as sub-agent of PNB Housing Finance Ltd. from June, 2003 to January, 2004. However, in none of the cases, the loan got sanctioned from PNB Housing Finance Ltd. by the accused. The Petitioner, therefore, requested Amarjit Singh Chatwal and Rajinder Singh Jolly to refund the advance paid to them in respect of the earlier said 8/9 business transactions. They, however, assured the Petitioner that they would visit his office and discuss the matter.

(3.) THE Petitioner's grievance is that the accused persons are very influential and the local police, particularly Inspector Raman Lamba, IO of the case has not carried out the investigation of the case fairly and properly. Rather, the investigation proceeded so as to save the accused persons. Referring to the status report filed by Inspector Raman Lamba and the orders dated 18.02.2012 and 31.03.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate(M.M.), the learned counsel for the Petitioner urges that in spite of repeated reminders by the learned 'MM', the local police did not carry out the investigation properly. The Petitioner could not even trace the persons who were running M/s. Credit India Ltd. in spite of the fact that certain advertisements etc. purported to have been issued by the accused persons were produced before the IO. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that although the learned Additional Standing Counsel urges that the investigation of the case has already been transferred to DIU, but still the status report has been filed by Inspector Raman Lamba who was the previous IO.