9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G& M company, owned by co-accused Gagandeep Singh, entered into an agreement with the complainant company to prepare samples of switches for 25,000 US dollars. A sum of 12,500 US dollars was transferred by way of NEFT in advance in the account of Ligero system Pvt. Ltd. with Punjab National Bank. Thereafter, due to the COVID Pandemic, everything came to standstill. So, G&M company unilaterally cancelled the agreement by sending email in writing but by that time, the complainant had already completed the work for 19,000 dollars. However, G&M company started demanding its money back, paid in advance to the complainant company. But thereafter, there took place no talk between the two companies. Then, co- accused Gagandeep Singh one of the owner of G&M company adopted method to get his money back by blackmailing the complainant through Co-accused Ravinder Kumar, who was posted as Superintendent Enforcement Directorate, Jalandhar. It has come out during the enquiry as well as investigation of the case, that co-accused Rajbir Singh, who was just residing next door to accused Gagandeep Singh told the complainant that Ravinder Kumar posted in Enforcement Department has made a phone call t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the guise of compromise got entered by way of extortion. That furthermore, it is pertinent to mention before this Hon'ble Court that the provisions of the PC Act have been invoked in the present FIR as one of the co-accused namely Ravinder Kumar is a Public Servant who has played a pivotal role in connivance with the Petitioner namely Paramvir Singh, Gagandeep Singh, Deepinder Singh and Arshdeep Singh in extorting money from the Complainant while making him believe that there is a case pending before the Enforcement Directorate against him and at the same time conspiring against the Complainant and cheating him to the tune of more than Rs. 11,00,000/-. Thus the provisions Under Sections 7, 7-A, 12 of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been rightly invoked in the present FIR." 4. In addition to the reply and the arguments, even the complainant has handed over synopsis which reads as follows:- "The Complainant namely Monish Salhotra went for a business deal in 2020 to the US where he met Gagandeep Singh (co-accused) and Marek, the owners of G&M Automation in the US. Monish Salhotra signed an MoU and got a payment of 12,500 USD for the comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ep Singh and the Complainant got suspicious and filed a Police complaint in July 2022. Since then the Complainant's complaint has been closed 6 times by the Jalandhar Police and finally, in the month of August 2023, the Complainant filed a complaint to the Anti-Corruption helpline of the Chief Minister which landed up with the Vigilance Department Jalandhar. It was found out later by Vigilance department there was no such complaint in ED. (1) Deepinder Singh and (2) Gagandeep Singh acted as complainant, (3) Ravinder Kumar made up a story of a fake ED case, (4) CA Paramvir Singh (Petitioner) and (5) CA Arshdeep Singh acted as they are solving a fake case and (6) Rajbir Singh made sure that the Complainant believed that there is a case in ED in reality. This fraud and blackmailing was done by the above mentioned 6 people to extort money and ruin the business of the Complainant. Thus, the registration of the present FIR. GROUNDS: 1. The Petitioner played a vital role in making the Complainant meet with the other co-accused whereby Rs. 11.50 lakhs were extorted by all the co-accused from the Complainant. 2. The co-accused namely Deepinder (in connivance wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l recover the money, but they need custodial interrogation to find out about the entire racket. Counsel for the State, as well as the complainant, submits that in case this Court is inclined to give bail, it should be subject to the condition that other accused shall not be entitled to the same benefit for the reason that the roles of other accused are much more severe than the petitioner. 7. An analysis of the pleadings, written synopsis, and arguments addressed at the bar would lead to the following outcome. The investigation points out that petitioner Paramvir Singh had suggested that the complainant engage the services of a Chartered Accountant who deals with the matters of the Enforcement Directorate. Although there was no complaint pending before the Enforcement Directorate and still the petitioner had introduced the complainant to Chartered Accountant Arshdeep Singh and to one alleged thug, Ravinder Kumar, who, by misrepresentation, extorted the complainant to pay Rs. Four lacs, which was to be further paid to Enforcement Directorate officers. This Court would not comment anything further because it would prejudice the rights of the main accused, CA Arshdeep Singh, and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
