Patiala immigration company duped Rs 40 lakh from 38 individuals

by offering fictitious job offers and even immigration clearances from the Minotaba State of Canada.


Patiala, June 21, 2004
Tribune News Service

As many as 38 more complainants came forward today to claim that they had also been duped by Cherry Immigration Service head Ramandeep Singh, who, they alleged, had supplied them with fictitious job offers and even immigration clearances from the Minotaba State of Canada.

The complainants approached district police chief A.S. Rai today. The SSP has directed the Civil Lines police authorities to make them a party in the case, which has already been registered against Ramandeep, his wife Cherry, father-in-law Harnek Singh Gill, brother-in-law Amardev Singh Gill, and Dimple Walia under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.

Earlier, a case had been registered against the accused when nine youngsters claimed that they had been duped by them. With the registration of the fresh complaint, the total money involved in the racket has touched Rs 40 lakh.

Meanwhile, the Patiala police has also filed an application in a local court, petitioning it to give directions forbidding Cherry Immigration Services head Ramandeep Singh, his wife Cherry and other accused from selling their properties.

Mr Rai said if it was found that the accused had defrauded the youngsters, the district police would move another application in the court, urging for the seizure of all properties and bank accounts of the accused so that the complainants could be compensated.

The police officer said till now the police had only come to know about a house of the accused in Majithia Enclave. When questioned that there was a notice outside this house stating that it had been sold, Mr Rai said the police would examine when the sale had taken place.

Meanwhile, police sources said that two more complainants had approached the Civil Lines Police Station, claiming they had also been defrauded by Ramandeep and the other accused, bringing the total number of complainants in the case to 11