Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1333
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Sanjay Kumar, J.
Gaurav Verma - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.T., Chandigarh - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 21537 of 2020, 23125 of 2020
Decided On : 15-10-2020
Ashok Tyagi, Advocate, Vivek Lamba, Advocate, Ashima Mor, Advocate
Headnote:
Fraud - HDFC Life Insurance Policy - IPC 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B - The court discussed the fraudulent operation undertaken to cheat several people, the involvement of the accused in setting up the Call Centre, the compromise with the complainant, and the ongoing investigation. The court highlighted the non-compoundable nature of offenses under IPC 468 and 471, the impact on society, and the potential for further cases to come to light. The court also considered the completion of investigation, recoveries, and the potential sentence of imprisonment, ultimately granting bail to the petitioners with conditions.
Fact of the Case:
Complaints of cheating related to HDFC Life Insurance policies were filed, leading to the arrest of several accused. Compromise deeds were executed, and bail petitions were filed by the accused. The investigation revealed an organized large-scale criminal operation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the fraudulent operation was organized and large-scale, with potential for further cases to come to light. It considered the compromise with the complainant, the non-compoundable nature of certain offenses, the completion of investigation, and the potential sentence of imprisonment, ultimately granting bail to the petitioners with conditions.
Issues: The issues involved the fraudulent operation, the compromise with the complainant, the ongoing investigation, the non-compoundable nature of certain offenses, and the potential sentence of imprisonment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the impact on society, the completion of investigation, the potential for further cases to come to light, and the potential sentence of imprisonment, ultimately granting bail to the petitioners with conditions.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioners on regular bail in FIR No.0004 dated 16.01.2020, upon their furnishing personal bonds and sureties, with conditions to rejoin the investigation and cooperate with the police authorities.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kumar, J. - On 13.11.2019, one Chander Mohan Munjal, Advocate, submitted a complaint addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, alleging that he had been cheated to the tune of Rs. 3,58,000/- on the pretext of renewing his lapsed HDFC Life Insurance Policy. He claimed that he was contacted by one Madhuri Kashyap in this regard through E-mail and mobile phone. He stated that, as per her instructions, he had deposited the aforestated sum of Rs. 3,58,000/- in the bank accounts furnished by her.
2. Fir No.0004 dated 16.01.2020 was accordingly registered on the file of Police Station, Sector 19, Chandigarh, under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The accused therein was shown to be unknown. While so, another complaint was received on 07.02.2020 from one Rakesh Gupta, who claimed that he had been duped to the tune of Rs. 5,08,000/- in connection with his HDFC Life Insurance policy.
3. Investigation revealed that a fake Call Centre had been set up at Vasundra, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, by certain persons claiming to be the authorized personnel of HDFC Life Insurance Company, so as to swindle monies from innocent people. Gaurav Verma, Ankur Verma, Manish Kumar and Mukesh Kumar were arrested at this Call Centre on 30.01.2020. Thereafter, Suraj Murmu and Raju Ranjan Yadav were also arrested on that day as bank accounts had been opened in their names and were being used for cheating the victims. On the disclosure statement made by Suraj Murmu, details of 100 bank accounts, ATM Cards, Cheque Books, mobile phones and SIM Cards were elicited and the same were recovered from the residences of Sonu and Suman. Mamta Chauhan, who had posed as Madhuri Kashyap and cheated the complainant, surrendered before the Court on 06.02.2020 and was also arrested. In total, 10 accused are now arrayed in relation to this FIR.
4. While so, compromise deeds dated 29.02.2020 were executed by the accused and both the above named victims. Thereby, the amount fraudulently obtained from the said victims was returned to them. On the strength of this compromise, a quash petition in CRM-M-10148-2020 was filed before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. By order dated 06.03.2020 passed therein, this Court directed the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to record the statements of all the parties concerned and report as to whether the compromise was genuine and was without pressure and undue influence. The report is still awaited and the case is pending consideration.
5. Suman Kumar, one of the accused in this case, was granted interim bail on conditions, in the light of the aforestated compromise and pendency of the quash petition, vide order dated 09.07.2020 passed in CRM-M-14487-2020. Manish Kumar, another accused, was granted regular bail, vide order dated 24.06.2020 passed in CRM-M-13910-2020, on the ground that he became an employee at the Call Centre only in October, 2019, and as no overt acts were attributed to him.
6. However, the bail petitions of Gaurav Verma, Karan Singh and Mamta Chauhan were dismissed by this Court, vide common order dated 24.06.2020 passed in CRM-M-13672-2020 and CRM-M-13901- 2020, taking note of the fact that other similar offences were still coming to light and merely because a compromise had been effected with two of the victims, the State would not be bound thereby and the accused necessarily had to face the consequences of their criminal conduct, if proved beyond reasonable doubt. This Court also noted the possibility of more such cases coming to light and held that the release of these accused at that stage may prejudice the course of investigation in such cases.
7. While so, Gaurav Verma and Mamta Chauhan again seek grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Be it noted that these are the second bail petitions filed by them before this Court.
8. Gaurav Verma cited personal grounds for seeking bail, stating that his wife had suffered a fall and required medical attention. He also cited the
