Gurgaon Court Slams Officer for Negligent Probe in High-Stakes Property Fraud Case

A city court in Gurgaon has strongly criticised a police officer for conducting a 'casual and unprofessional' investigation into a high-stakes real estate dispute involving two parties who allegedly secured loans against the same plot using conflicting documents.

While granting interim anticipatory bail to a 52-year-old woman accused in the case, Additional Sessions Judge Dr Gagan Geet Kaur pulled up the investigating officer (IO). In its order dated July 15, which was uploaded on Saturday, the court said it 'is constrained to observe casual and unprofessional conduct on the part of the IO concerned that he did not enquire into original sale deed … from complainant and no enquiry is made about the bank accounts of the seller and purchaser with regard to the transfer of consideration amount.'

The case originates from a First Information Report (FIR) registered at the Sushant Lok Police Station on May 19 this year, alleging encroachment and illegal construction on a plot.

The court noted that the matter 'does not appear to be a simple case of transfer of the same property' but rather 'is a matter of more serious concern as the loan has been obtained against the same property from two different banks by two persons.'

When prompted by the court to verify the original documents, the IO's submitted reports revealed that a private bank held the 1993 sale deed, which had been legally deposited by the accused, Suman Lata, in March.

On the other hand, a public sector bank reported that the complainant had secured a loan last July using a certified copy of the 1993 deed, supplemented by a July 2024 police Daily Diary Register (DDR), claiming the original document was lost.

Highlighting discrepancies between the two documents, the court observed that the accused's copy bore an authentic treasury officer's seal and date, while the copy submitted by the complainant lacked any such validation.

The certified copy retrieved by the IO from the tehsil office had a barcode instead of a traditional treasury stamp, prompting the judge to declare: 'This discrepancy raises a serious question on the genuineness and authenticity of the sale deed.'

The judge also questioned why the police did not investigate the alleged role of the registering Tehsildar.

The court further noted that the police had violated a prior April order that mandated that 'if the investigating agency on the basis of facts wishes to arrest the accused, it will serve a notice u/s 35(3) BNSS, one week in advance.'

Determining that no custodial interrogation was warranted given the purely documentary nature of the evidence, the court granted interim bail to the accused woman, directing her to formally join the police investigation on June 23.