Gurgaon Court Slams Police Officer For Casual Probe In Sushant Lok Property Fraud
A Gurgaon court has strongly criticized a police investigating officer for conducting a "casual and unprofessional" probe into a double-loan property fraud case in Sushant Lok.
Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gagan Geet Kaur pulled up the investigating officer (IO) in an order issued on July 15. The court criticized the police department for failing to verify basic financial records, bank trails, and original sale deeds during their investigation, while granting interim anticipatory bail to a 52-year-old accused woman.
The dispute arose in Sushant Lok, where two parties allegedly secured bank loans against the same plot using conflicting documents. The matter first reached the police when an FIR was registered at the Sushant Lok Police Station on May 19, alleging encroachment and illegal construction on the plot.
During the court proceedings, Judge Kaur observed that the case was not a simple matter of transferring the same property, but a more serious issue involving loans obtained from two different banks by two different people against the same plot.
When the court prompted the IO to verify the original documents, the submitted reports revealed significant discrepancies. A private bank held a 1993 sale deed that had been legally deposited in March by the accused, Suman Lata.
In contrast, a public sector bank reported that the complainant had secured a loan in July of the previous year using a certified copy of the 1993 deed. This was supplemented by a July 2024 police Daily Diary Register (DDR) report claiming the original document was lost.
The court highlighted that the copy of the deed held by the accused bore an authentic treasury officer’s seal and date, whereas the copy submitted by the complainant lacked any such validation. Furthermore, the certified copy retrieved by the IO from the tehsil office featured a barcode instead of a traditional treasury stamp. Judge Kaur stated that this discrepancy raised serious questions regarding the genuineness and authenticity of the sale deed.
The court also questioned why the police did not investigate the potential role of the registering Tehsildar in the matter.
Additionally, the court noted that the police had violated a prior April order. That order mandated that if the investigating agency wished to arrest the accused based on facts, it had to serve a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS at least one week in advance.
Finding that no custodial interrogation was warranted because the evidence was purely documentary, the court granted interim bail, directing her to formally join the police investigation on June 23.
