K K MEHRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions have been filed seeking anticipatory bail which have been strongly opposed by the State.

(2.) . On a complaint made by Shri P.K. Tripathi, Commissioner (Land) of D.D.A., a case under Section 420, 468, 471 and 120B, T.P.C.has been registered. It has been alleged in this complaint that on the basis of wills and nominations, certain mutations of the plots have been obtained from the D.D.A. by practising fraud by certain Management Committees of the co-operative societies in complicity with certain officials of the D.D.A. which have deprived the D.D.A. of huge amount which the D.D.A. was entitled to get as 50% of the unearned increase in the value of the plot on the plot being sold or transferred by the original allottee in favour of other persons who are neither blood relations nor actual heirs of the original allottee. Then certain specific instances of such fraud having been practised were quoted and request was made that a complete and through investigation be made to book the offenders who had played such fraud in causing huge losses to the D.D.A.

(3.) . During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had seized a number of files from the New Friends Co-operative House Building Society Limited. It is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail because I find that there are sufficient grounds for the Investigating Officer to have proceeded in the matter with a view to collect the evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. One Waryam Singh was an original allottee and member of the aforesaid society. It is alleged that in the original application form for seeking membership Waryam Singh had shown name of his own relation as nominee. The said application form was dated May 20, 1957 but the same was substituted in the record of the Society with a fictitious and froged form in which Pushpa and Anirudh have been shown as nominees without disclosing their relationship if any, with Waryam Singh. Ultimately the mutation of this plot had taken place in the names Statements of Gangadhar Aggarwal, husband of Pushpa and father of Anirudh has been recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code . in which tt has come out that M L. Jaggi, Secretary of the Society, K.K. .Mehta, an official of the Society and Gulshan Rai, the property broker had brought about this transaction and they had undertaken that with the influence which M L. Jaggi has over certain officials of the D.D A, the plot would be got mutaled in lavour of his wife and son and he had agreed to pay Rs, 35 000.00 to them for this purpose and later on the plot was got mutated in the record of the D.D. A. in favour of his wife and the son. He has also made a statement that his son was aged 20 years. That mean that his son was born sometime in the year 1967 or 1968 but the application form which appears in the record of the Society purporting to bear the signatures of Waryam Singh the age of Anirudh has been mentioned as two years meaning thereby that he was born in the year 1965 which prima facie is a false statement. In the evidence already collected it has been brought out that Waryam Singh was not in any manner related to Pushpa and Anirudh. A photo copy of the will allegedly of Waryam Singh which also appears in the record of the Society shows that Waryam Singh had executed the will on January 6, 1974 which was registered on January 24, 1979 bequeathing the plot in question in favour of Pushpa and Anirudh whereas the Investigating Officer had collected a photo copy of the registered will dated December 12, 1978, registered on January 24, 1979 showing that Waryam Singh had bequeathed the plot in question in favour of his two sons Harbhajan Singh and Narender Pal Singh. So, prima facie evidence has been collected showing the implication of all these petitioners for their having entered into conspiracy to forge the documents in the record of the Society and with the help of the said forged documents in complicity with certain officials of the D.D.A. to get the mutation done in favour of persons who were not blood relations of the original allottee with the object of depriving the D.D.A. of its dues because under the terms of the Sub-Lease issued by the <PG>379</PG> D D.A. the D.D.A. is entitled to have 50% of unearned increase in the pries of the plot. it is only where the transfer lakes place by devolution in favour of blood relation that D.D.A. charges less amount for allowing mutation. It is apparent that very serious offences appear io have been committed by the petitioners in complicity with some other persons.