JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashment of letter dated May 9, 1987 by which the Investigating Officer investigating the case pertaining to FIR No. 1 14 of 1987 under Sections 380, 467, 468, 470 and 420 of Indian Penal Code had intimated the Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd. restraining them from handing over any immovable property standing in the name of the petitioner, petitioner's wife and in the name of any other member of the petitioner's family as the investigation in the aforesaid case was pending. The copy of the letter issued by the Investigating Officer was not filed alongwith the writ petition as no such letter has been served on the petitioner by the Investigating Officer. The contents of the said letter have been read out in Court from the Police File. It is useful to re-produce the contents of the said letter which is dated May, 1987. "To The Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Limited, Kasturba Gandhi Road, Ansal Bhavan, New Delhi. Sub: Request to withhold the properties in r/o Shri J.C. Arora, Mrs. Uma Arora Miss Shivani Arora and Mr. Gaurav Arora R/oAI/228,S.J. Enclave. New Delhi in connection of an FIR No. 114/87 under Sections 380/420/467/462 IPC, P.S. Vinay Nagar. Sir, You are hereby directed not to transfer the above-said properties as a criminal case (above) is pending investigation with us against Shri J.C. Arora and others family members mentioned above are his dependant. The flats No. are as follows : 1. Flat No. 802 situated at 21, Bara Khamba Road. 2. Flat No. 402 situated at 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg. 3. Flat No. 1413, situated at 38, Nehru Place. 4. Flat No. 219, 6 Bhikaji Carnma Palace, New Delhi (Possession of this flat has already taken). 5. Flat No. D-2022, Palam Vibar, New Delhi. sd/- (P.S. Vinay Nagar) 2-5-87" The case has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint made on behalf of Economic Transport Organization by his partner Shri S.N. Arya. It baa been mentioned in the complaint that a bogus account has been opened by the petitioner in the name of the said firm representing himself to be sole proprietor in Punjab & Sind Bank in April, 1985 and petitioner had deposited cheques of huge amount issued by customers in favour of the said partnership firm illegally in the said account and thus it was averred that petitioner in conspiracy with others have committed the various offences under the Indian Penal Code mentioned above. The petitioner has been previously an employee of the said partnership concern. The investigation in the case is still in progress and according to the prosecution sufficient evidence has been collected show that the said partnership concern has been defrauded about Rs. 40,00,000.00 by the petitioner by adopting the modus operandi of getting the cheques from various customers of the said partnership concern and depositing the same in bogus accounts opened by the petitioner showing himself as sole proprietor of the said firm and then withdrawing the said amounts from the bogus accounts and utilising the said funds for acquiring different properties either in his name or in the names of his close family relations.

(2.) The legal question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in seeking quashment of the aforesaid letter issued by the police is that the investments made by the petitioner and by his close family members with the Ansal Properties for booking different flats does not show that those properties show to be acquired are subject-matter of any offence having been committed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as a matter of fact there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for issuing a letter of the type in question and moreover the property which is to be seized under Section 102 of the Code must be movable property capable of being actually seized. He has argued that the Legislative has not intended that provisions of Section 102 of the Code should apply to any immovable property.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents and the intervener have contended that there is no legal bar in seizing the immovable property if it is suspected that the immovable property is the subject- matter of criminal offence having been committed. It has also been argued that the petitioner had after withdrawing the amounts from the bogus accounts transferred those amounts in different accounts and had got deposited the amounts with the Ansal Properties for booking those flats and thus under Section 102 of the Code the Investigating Officer was right in issuing the aforesaid letter. It has been argued that the word 'property' used in Section 102 of the Code is of widest import which would include the immovable property as well and the word 'seizure' used in the said provision is also of wide import to include any order being made by which the control of the immovable properties is restricted.