You are on page 1of 7

Dy Commissioner of Delhi Police -EOW

22-23 Kutab Institutional Area


New Delhi
31/03/2006
Sub: - Points discussed in meeting on 27/03/06 regarding my latest e-mail
complaint against EOW-police persons, Mr.B.R.Arora, Mr. Anil Thukral And
Managing director M/s Sunglow Capital Services ltd.

This has reference to telephonic directions given to me to meet you


personally & subsequent meeting I had with you on 27/03/2006, wherein I
was asked to give the points in support of my allegations against
investigating officers of EOW- Delhi Police and my complaint against
accused.

In this regards, I put forward following points in favour of my allegations with


details attched as annexure and Exhibits:-

1. Police cannot sit as judge to give any judgment. Copy enclosed as EXH-1

2. Instructions are verbal and not the transactions, NSE computer gives all
details of transactions, which are to be siezed.

3. Was Mr. Anil Thukral client of M/S Sunglow, WHO IS MOUZ MALIK?
member client agreement fabricated by accused. EXH-2. Letter from NSE
indicating that transactions were in name of Mr Mouz Malik & NSE has levied
fine on M/S Sunglow, hence not recogonised Mr. Anil Thukral as “client”

4. False Statement in Status report by EOW that I had requested/voluntered


to trade in client ID of Mr Anil Thukral, crime U/S 166, 167 IPC

5. Mr Anil Thukral/B.R.Arora introduced themselves as Sub-broker of M/S


Sunglow. Is This not misrepresentation & offence?

6. Investigations of my allegations that accused were not buying selling shares but
extorting money / trading in shares of complainant without knowledge and
consent, by siezing records of transactions and comparing with hand written
statements of accused.

7. Case registered against vendor of exporter for intentionsl delays.

8. Similar case against M/s Times Capital Pvt Ltd with office at South Ext.
was registered by Delhi Police on complaint by Mr. Debashis Roy
Chowdhry. WHY NOT MY CASE?

9. False statements of accused ignored to favour accused


10. False staement in Status report that NSE was asked to give openion
regarding fradulent means by accused.

S.K.KAPOOR
ANNEXURE-1
DETAILS OF POINTS AT PAGE-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.

THESE DOCUMENTS ARE VITAL TO ESTABLISH ANY DEAL, SINCE ACCUSED


INSPITE OF REPEATED NOTICES FAILED TO GIVE THESE DOCUMENTS, IT
CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT ACCUSED WERE NOT BUYING OR SELLING
SHARES FOR COMPLAINANT BUT EXTORTING MONEY. WHICH IS
COGNIZABLE OFFENCE? EOW Delhi Police intentionally to favour accused
has not seized the contract notes/ details of deals alleged to have been carried
out in name of Mr. Anil Thukral, which police could easily had from NSE or M/s
Sunglow and could have investigated allegation of fraudulent deals.

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 statements regarding deals,
payments. whether all these persons knew that Mr.anil Thukral is not
agent/sub-broker of M/s Sunglow.

MY ALLEGATION THAT ACCUSED HAVE FABRICATED THIS DOCUMENT, IS


DEFINITELY A COGNIZABLE OFFENCE, AND EOW-DELHI POLICE HAD TO
REGISTER FIR AND THEN PROCEED WITH INVESTIGATIONS.
The letter written by NSE to SEBI, copy of which was forwarded by SEBI to
me, at page -2 (copy enclosed) states as follow:-

“ vide letter dated January 18, 2005 the trading member


furnished copies of contract notes in the name of Mouz Malik for
shares transferred by complainant. On perusal of said contract
notes it is observed that the shares transferred by complainant
have been sold in the account of Mr. Mouz Malik (CM70) operated
by Mr. Anil Thukral. It was also observed that the purchases of
shares of POLYPLEX, in client account number CM70 were
transferred to complainants account by trading member.

It may be noted that a limited inspection in respect of the matter


was conducted at Delhi and fine was also levied on him for dealing
with unregistered intermediary.

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.

Client-member document is dated April 2001, whereas M/S Sunglow transferred


shares of Polyplex Corporation into my d-mat account in Feb-2001, it means that
Mr. Anil Thukral was dealing with M/S Sunglow much earlier than April-2001.

IF ID CM-70 WAS ASSIGNED TO MR ANIL THUKRAL ON 01/04/2001, HOW


THEN SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED FROM THIS ID TO COMPLAINANT IN
FEB-2001?

THIS CLEARLY SPEAKS THAT ACCUSED FABRICATED DOCUMENT TO


SHOW MR. ANIL THUKRAL AS CLIENT WHEREAS HE WAS AGENT OF M/S
SUNGLOW

It appears that Mr. Anil Thukral was having two accounts one in name of Mr. Mauz
Malik and another in his name, 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, no action was taken (Copy of letter of NSE enclosed EXH-3)

Basic purpose of seeking proof of identification is defeated if a person


identifies him in one identity and operated in another identity.
4. Concerned police officials have given false information to Delhi High
Court that during investigations, I had given statement that I had
requested for transactions in client ID of Mr. Anil Thukral or voluntary gave
consent to deal in ID of Mr Anil Thukral. This is totally fabricated statement
which itself proves malafides of police persons. Any sensible and honest man
will try to understand, when I say that I was registered with three brokers before
coming into contact with accused persons, WHEN I WAS PURCHASING
SHARES FROM INITIAL OFFERS SINCE LAST 30 YEARS USING MY OWN
NAME, WHY I SHOULD HAVE REQUESTED TO TRANSACTIONS IN OTHER
PERSONS CLIENT ID?

ACCUSED WERE DEALING WITH DOZENS OF OTHER PERSONS; DID ALL


PERSONS REQUESTED FOR DEALING IN CLIENT ID OF ACCUSED? IF SO,
WHY? POLICE HAD TO INVESTIGATE AND RECORD STATEMENT OF OTHER
PERSONS. AFTER SEIZING ALL RECORDS OF TRANSACTIONS.

Relevant Para of my letter dated 08/01/2004 referred by respondent in Status


Report is reproduced below: -

“ Mr. Anil Thukral’s statement that complaint requested him for


trading in his client ID as he was Govt Servant and could not have
his client ID is false. Complainant before coming in touch with
accused had client ID with Three brokers. There is no restriction
on Govt Servants on purchasing and selling shares. Fact that
complainant transferred more than 10000 (Ten thousand) shares
of 24-25 companies from his d-mat account is exclusive proof that
complainant did not have any such restriction of using his name
ID. This is false statement to cover up there misrepresentation
that they were sub-brokers.”

Investigating Officer should have seized records of all transactions in name of Mr.
Anil Thukral. From these records he should have noted the account numbers of
persons for whom Mr Anil Thukral was doing transactions, recorded their
statement.

5. I have alleged since beginning that Mr. Anil Thukral/B.R.Arora introduced


themselves as Sub-broker of M/S Sunglow Capital services and now Mr. Anil
Thukral and Mr. B.R.Arora have given statement that they were not sub-broker
of M/S Sunglow. THIS ACT AMOUNTS MISREPRESENTATION WHICH IS
SURELY cognizable OFFENCE AND HENCE EOW HAD TO REGISTER FIR
AND INVESTIGATE ALLEGATION.

6. It has been admitted by accused before me that they sold my shares of at


their own without my knowledge & consent, this act amounts to cheating
and criminal breach of trust. M/s sunglow also confirmed so. This could
have been easily proved by seizing D-mat accounts of M/S Sunglow and
hand written statements of Mr. B.R.Arora giving details of deals; in these he has
mentioned the NSE settlement number and name S.K.Kapoor, and balance
shares in my account on date,
FROM THESE STATEMENTS AND D-MAT ACCOUNTS OF ACCUSED, IO
COULD HAVE VERIFIED THAT
(A) Whether my allegation that accused were trading in my shares without my
knowledge and consent is correct or not, as by comparing the d-mat statement &
hand written statement of shares shown as balance in my account. IN CASE THE
HAND WRITTEN STATEMENT SHOW SHARES AS BALANCE IN MY ACCOUNT
AND D-MAT STATEMENT DOES NOT SHOW THE SHARES LYING IN D-MAT
ACCOUNT, MEANS THAT THE SHARES WERE SOLD WITHOUT MY
KNOWLEDGE AND INSTRUCTIONS, SIMILARLY SHARES SHOWN AS SOLD,
IF LYING IN D-MAT ACCOUNTS OF ACCUSED, MEANS OF FRAUDULENT
DEALS, WHICH IS COGNIZABLE OFFENCE.

(B) HAVE THESE DEALS BEEN ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT AT ALL

(C) IF CARRIED, WERE THESE CARRIED OUT AT THE PRICES SHOWN IN


STATEMENT? IF NOT, THIS ACT AMOUNTS TO CHEATING AND CRIMINAL
BREACH OF TRUST.

6 (b) 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.

7. EOW of Delhi Police registered a case against a vendor on complaint by an


exporter that vendor intentionally did not supply items in time so that the LC of
exporter expires. IF CASE CAN BE REGISTERED ON SUCH AN
ALLEGATIONS, WHY NOT IN MY CASE? BECAUSE I HAVE NOT BRIBED
POLICE?

8. Although similar case against M/s Times Capital Pvt Ltd with office at South
Ext. was registered by Delhi Police on complaint by Mr. Debashis Roy
Chowdhry.

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.

MR. DEBASHISH Roy’s PETITIONER’S CASE


CASE
Instructions were given Instructions were given
verbally/telephonically by verbally/telephonically to sub-
complainant to broker. broker.

Allegations of fraudulent Allegations of fraudulent


transactions leveled by transactions leveled by
complainant against accused. complainant against accused.

Police station registered FIR Police station did not


Register FIR.
Accused alleged that Accused alleged that
complainant suffered losses complainant suffered losses

Police seized transaction Police did not seize the


records of accused and transaction records of
compared with deals on NSE accused to establish the
to find out the fraud. fraud, Perhaps to favour
accused.

9. FALSE STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED IGNORED TO FAVOUR ACCUSED

i) Mr Anil Thukral stated that complainant during first 4 months of deal


suffered losses to tune of Rs 4 lakhs, I had given handwritten statements
of first four months to IO as evidence that this statement is false, BUT
THIS VITAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN IGNORED.

ii) Mr B.R.Arora stated that he introduced me to Mr Anil Thukral during


travelling in car pool. I started dealing in Feb-2001, whereas I joined Car
pool with Mr B.R.Arora in April-2002. IO intentionally to favour accused
did not investigate the case and made false report for which I intend to
file criminal complaint.

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.

10. 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?

Mr. B.R.Arora in statement stated that he introduced Mr Anil Thukral to


complainant & he requested for dealing with Mr. Anil Thukral. Concerned police
officers did not apply mind and ask Mr. B.R.arora in what capacity he introduced
mr anil thukral to complainant? As a sub-broker or as client? Only dishonest and
corrupt police officers will say that if a person discloses that he is not sub-broker,
any body will deal with him. Mr anil thukral was dealing with dozens of persons, did
all of them requested mr anil thukral to deal in his client id and after introducing
himself as a client of m/s sunglow, requested for dealing with him?

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