Dismissed

Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 May 2010CRM-M/182/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging forgery of signatures and fabrication of a supplementary partnership deed to misappropriate company shares. The single judge bench held the petition premature as investigation was at the initial stage and rejected the plea.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of FIR No. 208 dated September 16, 2009 dismissed as premature.

Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia Vs State of Punjab… — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-182 of 2010 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-182 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision: May 12, 2010

¶6

Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia

¶7

…..Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

…..Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶12

-.-

¶13

Present:Mr.Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.L. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

-.-

¶15

M.M.S. BEDI, J.

¶16

Petitioner has sought the quashing of FIR No. 208 dated September 16, 2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sadar, Rajpura, District Patiala, registered against the petitioner and others on the compliant of Sandeep Kaur Ahluwalia, wife of Late Sh.Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia who was brother of the petitioner. The allegation in the FIR is that her husband was eldest son of Bhupinder Singh Ahluwalia. He (Bhupinder Singh Ahluwalia) and his wife Gurdev Kaur

¶17

Crl. Misc. No.M-182 of 2010 [2]

¶18

died. The FIR registered on the basis of a complaint filed by complainantrespondent No.3 reads as follows:-

¶19

“Dated 3.8.2009 from Mrs. Sandeep Kaur Ahluwalia, (complainant) through Power of Attorney holder Mrs.Mandeep Ahluwalia Pahwa, R/o 33, Model Town, Ludhiana to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala, REG. Registration of FIR, Dear Sir, It is respectfully submitted as under:- (1) That the complainant is the wife of Late shri Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia who was the Chairman and MD of Mukat Pipes Ltd. having a unit at Village Khadoli, Patiala, Rajpura Road, Rajpura, Punjab. Mr.Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia was the eldest son of Shri Bhopinder Singh Ahluwalia and Smt.Gurdev Kaur (both since deceased). Upon his death on 3^rd January 2004, Mr.Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia has left three daughters viz. Mandeep A. Pahwa (married), Manpreet Ahluwalia & Simrita Ahluwalia. Mr.Rajinder Singh had two younger brothers viz. Mr.Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia (accused No.1) R/o 201-202, Lumiere Building, J.P. Road, Versova, Andheri (West) Mumbai and Mr.Ravinder Singh Ahluwalia (accused No.2) R/o A,. Highland Park, Lokhanwala, Andheri (W), Mumbai. (2) That there was a partnership firm by the name of Mukatanandan Corporation

¶20

Crl. Misc. No.M-182 of 2010 [3]

¶21

Registered in 1975 in which the complainants husband Mr.Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia and her mother in law Gurdev Kaur were partners. Mrs.Gurdev Kaur expired in September 2003 a few months before the death of Mr.Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia. (3) That in March 2005, Mrs.Sandeep Kaur Ahluwalia and her three daughters applied to Mukat Pipes Limited, for transmission of the said 3396700 (43.38%) shares of Late S.Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia in their name. the Board of Directors approved the transmission in the name of Mrs.Sandeep Kaur Ahluwalia. (4) That Mr.Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia (accused No.1) under a letter dated 25^th November 2005 addressed to another director of the company Mr.Kamal Jain, alleged that certain equity shares of Mukat Pipes Limited were held by M/s Mukatanandan Corporation in the name of Mr.Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia who was the partner of the said firm. In this notice calling for a board meeting of Mukat Pipes Ltd. on 5^th December 2005 the above named referred to a partnership deed in which there were three remaining so existing partners of Mukatanandan Corporation i.e. the complainant and both the brothers of Late S.Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia. The Complainant further states that apprehending that her equity shares in the company comprising 43.38%

¶22

Crl. Misc. No.M-182 of 2010 [4]

¶23

(3396700 shares) could be tampered. Complainant issued a notice to Mr.Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia and Mr.Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia (accused No.1 and 2) on 2^nd December 2005 against the alleged re-transmission of equity shares which stood vested in the name of the complainant as a legal heir. Therefore, the complainant called upon accused No.1 and 2 to furnish a notarized copy of the supplementary deed referred to in their agenda. (5) That after the death of my husband in 2004 there was a oral understanding amongst the family members that I alongwith my daughters would took after the affairs of my husband in northern India more particularly Mukat Pipes Limited Village Khandoli Patiala, Rajpura Road, Rajpura, Mukat Educational Trust, Damanheri Road near bye pass Rajpura to manage the above companies and to come out of shock and trauma I stated spending a lot of my time in Punjab at my maternal home situated at 8-B Model Town, Patiala. During my stay in Punjab in 2004 Mr.Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia (accused No.1) Mr.Jasbir Singh (accused No.3) resident of 160, Ajit Nagar, Near Leela Bhavan Patiala, brother in law of accused No.1 with whom he normally stays whenever he visits Patiala and the Chartered Account Mr.Sunil Desai (accused No.4) of

¶24

Crl. Misc. No.M-182 of 2010 [5]

¶25

Desai Dighe & Co., 7, R.M. Building, 49 Dr.E.Mose Road, Opposite Mahalaxmi Railways Station (W), Mumbai, visited me at my maternal home at Patiala and brought certain stamp papers and balance sheets for my signature. They created mental pressure on me to sign these urgent paper for income tax returns etc. as well as of group companies would befall on me as my husband had passed away, the complainant had to rely on the accused as they were handling the Income Tax matter at Mumbai even during the time of her Late husband more especially Mr.Sunil Desai. They procured complainants signature on a number of papers some of them blank on which cross marks (X) were present and the complaint signed such papers in good faith as she had trust and faith in her husband’s brothers. Some time later Mr.Tashir Singh (accused No.3) on the instruction of Accused No.1 visited the complainant again on the pretext of getting certain other papers (including blank) signed which I also did so in good faith I am not aware of the whereabouts of these documents and am afraid that these are being and will be misused in the future. (6) In the later on it came to the knowledge of the complainant that her such signature had been used to fabricates a Supplementary deed Mukatanandan

¶26

Crl. Misc. No.M-182 of 2010 [6]

¶27

Corporation by playing a fraud as they did not disclose the purpose for which they got her signatures. The Chartered Accountant viz. Mr.Sunil Desai (accused No.4) played a pivtol role in fabricating the supplementary deed of partnership and has been the author of this document alongwith Mr.Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia and Mr.Ravinder Singh Ahluwalia (accused No.1 and 2). (7) The Supplementary deed is a fabricated document wherein the sign of complainant is procured by misrepresentation and fraud by creating a mental pressure on the complainant to sign urgent papers for income tax returns etc. stating that a huge liability of income tax as well as group companies would befall on the complainant as complainant’s husband had passed away. The complainant was undergoing mental trauma as she had lost her husband and during that course the documents was created by the accused to take benefit of the situation. The complainant also confirms that the signatures of Mr.Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia (the husband of the complainant) and Smt.Gurdev Kaur Ahluwalia (mother-in-law of the complainant) have been forged by the accused. That this unregistered supplementary deed of partnership is fabricated and forged and pre-dated fraudulently to show that it was signed during the life

¶28

Crl. Misc. No.M-182 of 2010 [7]

¶29

time of deceased Mr.Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia and Mrs.Gurdev Kaur. The accused forged the signatures of Mr.Rajinder Singh and Mrs.Gurdev Kaur to create this fraudulent, forged and fabricated document to deprive the complainant from her legal rights and to take control and management of Mukat Pipes Ltd., Rajpura. (8) That the supplementary deed was created with a preconceive notion by the accused in order to misuse the same and use them to further their vested interests. The complainant further state that the accused and malafide intention and ulterior motive in order to enhance their vested interest. (9) That the supplementary partnership deed has been forged and fabricated by the active connivance and conspiracy of all the accused to take control of the management of the operational unit of Mukat Pipes Limited, Rajpura. The accused committed forgery with the intention that the fabricated and forged partnership deed will be used in future for cheating the complainant. (10) That the accused have used this forged and fabricated supplementary partnership deed of Mukatanandan Corporation in various forums and produced it as a genuine document in this deed and they have submitted various versions (two different versions are enclosed at annexure 1b) from time to time which is

¶30

Crl. Misc. No.M-182 of 2010 [8]

¶31

again a blatant use of this document to harm interest and to take away control and management of Mukat Pipes Limited. The complainant has challenged and denied the genuineness of this document wherever it is product by the accused. (11) That Mr.Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia and Mr.Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia (accused No.1 and 2) have caused wrongly loss to the complainant and wrongly gain for themselves thereby creating business loss to the complainant in order to wipe off the mist got the signature of her husband and mother in law checked and compared from a handwriting expert who gave the report that both the signature on the alleged supplementary partnership deed are not genuine. The handwriting experts opinion is enclosed as annexure 2. (12) That all this has been done to take control and management of Mukat Pipes Limited Rajpura which is under the Rajpura Police Station, Rajpura. The accused No.1 and 2 are already controlling the management of all other units of the family operational in Maharashtra and Gujarat to which the complainant has no control. It is clear that the accused 1 and 2 want to deprive the family of their elder brother Mr.Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia and snatch the control and management of the industrial unit situated at Rajpura and cause loss to the complainant and

¶32

Crl. Misc. No.M-182 of 2010 [9]

¶33

to gain wrongly for themselves. It is therefore, requested that case under the relevant offence of Indian Penal Code may please be registered against abovesaid accused and they be arrested and proceeded further as per law. Submitted by Sandeep Kaur Ahluwalia w/o Late S.Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia C/o Mukat Pipes Limited, Rajpura, Chairperson Mukat Education Trust Rajpura, Distt. Patiala, through her attorney daughter Ms.Mandeep Singh Ahluwalia, 573/AFO- 15.09-09 FIR dated 15.09.09 Rajpura for complains and report dated 15.09.09. Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patiala 1231/c/RJP dated 16-09 SHO Sadar Rajpura to register the case u/s FIR I/CC/R 16/09/09 DDR No.28 at 3-10 P.M.”

¶34

A perusal of the FIR indicates that the allegation levelled by respondent No.3 is that the signatures of her husband and Smt.Gurdev Kaur had been forged by the petitioner and other accused and unregistered supplementary deed of partnership has been fabricated and forged by predating fraudulently the same with an oblique motive to deprive respondent No.3 from her legal rights to take control of the management of Mukat Pipe Limited.

¶35

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the existence of supplementary deed of partnership stands admitted since 2005. The said supplementary deed of partnership is the subject matter of a

¶36

Crl. Misc. No.M-182 of 2010 [10]

¶37

number of civil proceedings between respondent No.3 and the petitioner. The said supplementary deed has been an important document in Company Petition No. 112 of 2005 filed by respondent No.3 before the Company Law Board under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act and respondent No.3 has been taking up the objections in various affidavits that the supplementary deed of partnership has been forged by the petitioner and that M/s Mukatanandan Corporation had only two partners, namely, Gurdev Kaur and Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia. Ms.Gurdev Kaur died in September 2003 and Mr.Rajinder Singh Ahluwalia died on January 3, 2004. After the expiry of both the partners, the petitioner had forged and fabricated the supplementary deed of partnership showing himself to be the partner without there being any right to claim on the basis of forged fabricated and unregistered supplementary deed of partnership. Reliance has been placed on certain affidavits submitted by respondent No.3 in various proceedings i.e. in proceedings of Company Petition, in civil suit and in arbitration petitions. It has been contended that the said supplementary deed of partnership has been subject matter of number of proceedings in which different orders have been passed by different authorities including Bombay High Court and Supreme Court. Respondent No.3 by suppressing different proceedings has wrongly got the FIR registered against the petitioner and others. Reference was made to SLP (c) NO.27174 of 2009 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had made an observation and suggested that the parties should adopt mediation to resolve the dispute and differences.

¶38

Crl. Misc. No.M-182 of 2010

¶39

[11]

¶40

I have considered all the contentions of counsel for the petitioner in context to the law laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal , AIR 2004 SC 604 and I am of the opinion that counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring the grounds for quashing within the parameters laid down in the said case. The investigation in the case is at initial stage. The supplementary partnership deed is to be taken into possession to determine its authenticity. It is certainly be premature at this stage to quash the FIR solely on the ground that the circumstances of the case make it a case of civil liability.

¶41

The petition for quashing of the FIR is apparently premature. No ground is made out for quashing the FIR at this stage.

¶42

Dismissed.

¶43

May 12, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudha Bala Chadda Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kuldip Singh Vs State of Punjab & Others

Major Gen G S Riar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurdeep Singh S/O Himmat Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab Thru Spdt of Police Ldh and Ors.

Gurpreet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab through Ssp Ludhiana and Ors.