(Representational image)Dressing down the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the special Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC) in Chandigarh has rejected the closure report in a forgery case, stating that it had “not conducted a thorough investigation…”
The court of Iram Hasan, Special JMIC, Wednesday directed the CBI to conduct further investigation in accordance with law in the case against one Gurkirapal Singh Chawla and others, while accepting a closure report in a counter case against one Deepa Duggal.
The court, while accepting the closure report against Duggal, mentioned that there appears nothing for disagreeing. On the other hand, while rejecting the closure report against Chawla, his wife Jagjeet Kaur, son Hamrit Singh, Gurucharan Singh Bhatty (father in law of Harmit) and Sarabjit Singh (friend of Bhatty), observed that acceptance of the closure report shall lead to loss of public faith in criminal justice.
As far as the allegations levelled by Duggal regarding forgery of documents, possessing and using forged documents as genuine and attempt to cheating are concerned, as per CFSL report, her signatures on two authority letters were not matching with her specimen, which indicates that she had not signed these. Duggal’s signatures also did not match in the sale agreement, produced by Chawla. Apart from it, signatures of Duggal and Guneeta (daughter of Chawla) are not matching with their specimen and that of Phul (mother-in-law of Duggal) is not matching with her admitted signatures.
The court order read, “…No investigation has been carried out by (the) CBI to the effect as to when the signatures of Phul Duggal, Deepa Duggal and Guneeta are forged, how the signatures of Hamrit and other witnesses are genuine. The fact of the signatures of Hamrit and other witnesses being genuine on forged documents indicates towards their involvement in the forgery which have been overlooked by (the) CBI…”
Regarding the allegations against the accused persons for submitting forged documents for obtaining loan from Punjab National Bank, which was sanctioned but not disbursed, the court held that “…the act on the part of a person of submitting forged document for the purpose of taking loan is sufficient to infer prima facie the wrongful intention on his part for the purpose of cheating and the same facts have been overlooked by (the) CBI. No investigation has been carried out as to why forged documents were submitted by Chawla family in bank for the purpose of obtaining loan…”
Regarding allegations against Bhatty and Sarabjit who were arrested for being witnesses to a memorandum of family settlement, which was purported to be a forged document, the court order stated no investigation was carried out by the CBI to the effect as to why they became witnesses and signed the document.
As per records, the CBI had filed the report in September mentioning that both the cases are of civil nature and during investigation it has been learnt there was no loss of money to anyone. Duggal and Chawla had challenged the closure reports of the CBI against each other.
Cross FIRs against both the parties were investigated by Economic Offences Wing of Chandigarh Police.
