Smt. Kusum Lata v. Central Bureau of Investigation

in FIR RC0072023S0006, under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station CBI, SPE, Dehradun based on which charge-sheet under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 471 and 474 IPC has been submitted. She has sought her release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The FIR in the instant case, has been lodged pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 14.11.2022, in Criminal Writ Petition No.1253 of 2013, Santosh Kumar Bagla Vs. Senior Superintendant of Police and Others, (“the petition”). The issue in that petition was taken up on a complaint, in which, it was stated that the judgments dated 14.10.2004, 22.08.2004 and 26.07.2005, of this Court were placed before the Company Law Board, but these orders were never passed by this Court. They were forged. The issue relates to M/S Angelia Housing Pvt. Ltd. (“the company”), which was incorporated on 22.01.1970. It had land in District Dehradun. There were disputes with regard to the nature of land. On multiple occasions, the State Government had declared that land as forest land, but the company was objecting to it. 2

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence against the applicant; some circumstances are being placed against the applicant, which in no manner, connect the applicant with any offence. He submits that the applicant did not ever execute any Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”); the MoU was never recovered in original; the applicant did not receive any money from anyone; according to the CBI, there were three High Court’s orders, which were forged, but only two were recovered; that too not in original and Forensic Science Laboratory Report does not establish authorship of those orders. He also submits that there was an FIR lodged with regard to forging of order dated

02.03.2005 of Company Law Board, with regard to which, FIR No.507 of 2010 was lodged at Police Station, Kalkaji, Delhi, in which, charge-sheet has already been filed against Dharmpal Yadav alias Fauzi and Naresh Kumar. He submits that these two persons are, in fact, the actual investors, who sponsored Janardhan Prashad and Shyam Sunder Yadav, who are party in the MoU. It is argued that the applicant is in custody since October, 2024; she is a woman; the co-accused is her husband.

5. Learned counsel for the CBI submits that it is a deep hatched conspiracy, which was initially surfaced when Sudhir Gupta filed return in Registrar of Company (“ROC”) informing thereby the Director of the company Ms. Mausami Bhattacharjee has resigned and three persons were inducted as Directors of the company including the applicant. On it, Ms. Mausami Bhattacharjee filed a complaint in the Company Law Board, where it was held that the return filed by Sudhir Gupta was 3 forged and Ms. Mausami Bhattacharjee was still Director of the company; the applicant was not the Director. It is argued that in order to dupe the investors and at the behest of the applicant, three orders of the High Court were forged; those orders were faxed to the buyers, from a shop, which was adjacent to the house of the applicant; the buyers were persuaded to invest in the company and the applicant and her husband took Rs.75 Lakhs. It is argued that, in fact, in the Company Law Board’s proceedings also, it is the applicant and her husband, who were doing pairavi; there was another case of the company relating to orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer; the case reached up to this Court. It is argued that in this Court also, though the proceedings were through one Naresh Kumar, but, in fact, it is the applicant and her husband, who were doing pairavi, as was revealed by the lawyer of this Court, who was representing the company in that matter. He submits that copy of MoU is with the CBI; who authored it becomes not much relevant because it is established that the applicant is beneficiary of the MoU; she has claimed herself as a Director of the company, took money from the investors, in fact, persuaded the investors to invest money in the company.

6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is to be avoided. To the extent of appreciating the controversy the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation made at this stage shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case.

7. At the time of considering the bail application, various factors are to be considered, which include the gravity of offence, 4 position of the offender, ramification or the consequences of the act on the society at large, etc.

8. The applicant does not claim herself to be the Director of the company before this Court. But, Sudhir Gupta had filed return to the ROC informing that the applicant is the Director of the company and also informed that the actual Directors have resigned. This was found to be forged and in that matter, an FIR has been lodged and now, it is stated that the charge-sheet has been filed.

9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the CBI would submit that, in fact, the applicant is also one of the accused in that matter, which at this stage, means that after investigation, it was found that in giving false information to the ROC, the applicant was also involved. After all, she was wrongly shown the Director of the company. The CBI has also collected materials to reveal that in the proceedings before the Court or before the Company Law Board on behalf of the company, it was the applicant and her husband, who were doing pairavi. The statements of the lawyers have been recorded by the CBI.

10. The CBI has laid their hands on the High Court’s three judgments. In fact, in this case, FIR has not been lodged by any individual, which initiated the investigation by the CBI in the present matter. It is by an order dated 14.11.2022, passed in the petition. The persons, who are named in the MoU have told it to the CBI that they had given money. According to the CBI, as per the statements of the witnesses the applicant and her husband had 5 taken Rs.75 Lakhs, mostly in cash and some transactions were done online in the account of the husband of the applicant.

11. As per the CBI, under a conspiracy, firstly, the authorities were informed that Ms. Mausami Bhattacharjee has resigned from the Directorship of the company. This order was found to be forged and so decided by the Company Law Board, in which matter, after investigation charge-sheet had been submitted against the applicant also. It is stated that an MoU was executed by the applicant and her husband to dupe the investors. The investors have given the statements that they had given money to the applicant and her husband. Not only this, this Court has found that the judgments of this Court were forged. On behalf of the CBI, it is argued that those orders were forged so as to nullify the orders of the Company Law Board and to impress the investors that still the applicant and her husband are Directors of the company, so as to persuade them to invest the money in her company. These are very serious offences. Their ramification is quite large.

12. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail and the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

13. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

12.08.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd50 4686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8 EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA