Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dy Commissioner Eow-06
Dy Commissioner Eow-06
1. Police cannot sit as judge to give any judgment. Copy enclosed as EXH-1
1. Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court in number of orders directed that
police has to register FIR; if complaint is made regarding any cognizable offence
without any reservation regarding correctness of complaint and Police cannot
sit as judge to give any judgment. Copy enclosed as EXH-1. As such once
the complainant has given the complaint regarding committement of a cognizable
offence, EOW should have registered FIR and investigated the case, which was
not done and investigations not carried out properly to favour accused.
2. Instructions are verbal and not the transactions, transactions were carried
out at NSE. According to NSE, all transactions whether materialised or not, are
registered in computer which gives all details eg (a)date, time, price, qty, script
for which bid is placed, (b) if bid is cancelled or modified it gives date time when
cancelled/modified (c) if bid materialises it gives e number, date, time , qty &
price.
3. In Status report EOW Delhi Police had said that Mr. Anil Thukral was
“Client” of M/S Sunglow without verifying that he was ‘Client” Now it has
come to notice that M/s Sunglow and Mr. Anil Thukral fabricated member-
client agreement PLACED AS EXH-2. As this is not on stamp paper as per
SEBI/NSE rules & no signature of any witness, Client ID cm-70 alleged to
have been allotted to Mr.Anil Thukral belongs to some Mr. Mouz Malik.
IO should have seized records of M/s Sunglow to know whether M/S Sunglow was
having client-member agreement with all clients on plain paper with court fee
stamps affixed on it.
Further instead of sending file to NSE, Police should have sought following
clarifications from NSE :-
a) Transaction records in name of Mr. Anil Thukral/Mr. Mouz Malik showing date
from which started, bank and account details from where shares/cheques were
received/ issued into this Client ID.
b) Find out details of these persons and record their statents regarding deals,
payments, whether all these persond knew that Mr.anil Thukral is not
agent/sub-broker of M/s Sunglow.
The letter written by NSE to SEBI, copy of which was forwarded by SEBI to
me, at page -2 (copy enclosed) states as follow:-
From above statement it is clear that (a) Mr Anil Thukral was dealing under
fictitious name of Mouz Malik or Mr. Mouz Malik was a dummy name for illegal
activities of M/s Sunglow or Mr Mouz Malik some other person was actual client
and name of Mr. Anil Thukral has been superimposed to show him as “client”
whereas he was agent of M/s Sunglow.
Further this letter clearly reveals that NSE has not recognised Mr. Anil Thukral as
“Client” It is why they levied fine for dealing with unregistered intermediary.
So M/s sunglow and Mr Anil Thukral/B.R.Arora gave false statement to police, that
Mr. Anil Thukral was client, which itself is an offence.
It means that Mr. Anil Thukral was having two accounts one in name of Mr. Mauz
Malik and another in name of Mr. Anil Thukral, which is an offence and amounts to
be operating under fictitious name. POLICE HAD TO TAKE NOTE AND
REGISTER CASE AGAINST ACCUSED INCLUDING M/S SUNGLOW, SINCE M/S
SUNGLOW KNEW THAT MR. ANIL THUKRAL IS OPERATING UNDER
FICTITIOUS NAME AND THEY ALLOWED HIM TO DO SO, HENCE THEY ARE
ACCOMPLICE IN CRIME. BUT IN SPITE OF BRINGING THESE NEW FACTS
BEFORE OFFICIALS OF DELHI POLICE, DELHI POLICE OFFICIALS HAVE NOT
TAKEN ANY ACTION. (Copy of letter of NSE enclosed EXH-2)
7. I have given hand written statement of Mr. B.R. Arora showing certain shares
with qty shown as balance in my account, as on 31/03/2003, IO did not
intentionally verify to harm & injure me that these were actually balance in my
account on date specified. If not, this act amounts to cheating and criminal
breach of trust BY MR. B.R.ARORA & MR. ANIL THUKRAL. Where these
shares have gone? Merely telling by the accused that complainant suffered
loses is no ground, accused should be asked to give statements of deals as
required under rules of NSE/SEBI.
How police could smell that Mr. Devashish Roy Chowdhary’s case is a case of
fraud and petitioner’s case is not? The different behaviour of police with two
petitioners on similar type of case clearly speaks of police’s mind. Why the
concerned Police station has not registered FIR in petitioner’s case?
Petitioner produces below comparative study of both the cases on the basis of
information gathered by him to show that case is of similar nature.
iii) Mr Anil Thukral alleged that shares were given in lieu of losses suffered by
complainant, this false statement could have easily been established from
the hand written statement of deals given by Mr B.R.Arora which indicate
These shares as balance in my account
after months of transfer.
I had given hand written statements of accounts given by Mr B.R.Arora from Feb
2001 in support of petitioner’s allegation that Mr B.R.Arora was the main accused
in cheating scandal and petitioner was buying/selling shares thru him. EOW Delhi
police has intentionally ignored the vital evidence to favour him. IF HE WAS NOT
DEALING WITH PETITIONER, HOW AND WHY HE WAS GIVING HIS HAND
WRITTEN STATEMENTS?
EOW-Delhi Police to favour accused have not recorded statements of other co-
passengers of accuse and petitioner to establish the facts and did not investigate
to find out for how many other persons he was working. Mr B.R.Arora fraudulently
took blank cheque of Rs 10000/= on 7th August’2002 from petitioner on false
pretext that M/S Sunglow has to make immediate payments to some one. and if
cheque is given in Sunglow’s account it will take time. He deposited this cheque
No 114616 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Shakurbasti into his minor son’s
account Mr. Subash Arora. This itself proves his involvement in transactions, but
Investigating authorities have ignored this to help accused.
11. Mr Vyas Addl DCP, sent file to NSE against directions of law, and EOW Delhi
Police falsely to mislead Delhi High Court stated that “ --- Acordingly complaint
of Sh. S.K.Kapoor was referred to NSE to ascertain whether any fraudulent
means were adopted or otherwise”
Letter written to NSE placed as EXH-3 clearly speaks that EOW Delhi Police
did not seek any clarification or asked NSE to investigate that any fraudulent
means have been adopted or not. More this is work of Police to seize the
records and ascertain whether fraudulent means have been adopted or not.
In status report EOW-DELHI Police stated that there is no evidence that accused
induced complainant to deal with them, IN SUCH A CASES ONLY
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN BE PROVIDED, BASIC FACT THAT
COMPLAINANT FROM 25 YEARS WAS ONLY BUYING SHARES FROM
PRIMARY MARKET AND HIS SELLING WAS HARDLY 2% OF HOLDINGS IN 25
YEARS, HOW SUCH A BIG DEALINGS STARTED?
in Status report to Delhi High Court has given number of false statements, which
will be argued before High Court and Court prayed to take action against the
concerned Delhi Police Officials.
S.K.Kapoor
3, Sunshine Apartment
A-3, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063