PARMINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) THIS appeal is filed challenging the order of the High Court, whereby, the High Court has dismissed an application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called "Cr.P.C." for short) for quashing the proceedings arising out of charge sheet of case No. 3045 of 2004 under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called "IPC" for short), pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

(3.) THE present appellant Parminder Kaur is 74 years old lady. It is claimed in the Special Leave Petition that the present appellant, in fact is the wife of Col. Hargobind Singh and is having indifferent health. It is claimed that Parmindar Kaur is none else, but the complainant's brother's wife and it was she who had filed the three aforementioned suits, being Civil Suit Nos. 266 of 2002, 267 of 2002 and 268 of 2002 on 27.5.2002. It is pointed out in the Special Leave Petition that she had, in fact, applied for the certified copy of the Revenue Records and it was she who prosecuted the suits in her capacity as the wife of Col. Hargobind Singh. She also clarified that she had applied for the Revenue Records on 16/5/2002 and the same were made available to her on 27.5.2002 and she had given certified copies to her counsel Shri O.P. Gupta. Further she has pointed out that earlier the power of attorney was executed by husband of appellant, Col. Hargobind Singh in favour of the complainant/respondent No. 2 on 3/7/1970 with regard to the land in question, however, it was revoked on 29/7/1975. She then pointed out that her daughter Amrinder Kaur executed a power of attorney with regard to her land on 27.3.1991 and revoked the same in April, 1991. THE further claim is that after the certified copies of Revenue Records were given to her counsel Shri O.P. Gupta, she was asked at that time to put signatures on 40 blank papers. Her contention is that she had nothing to gain by altering the date on the certified copies by adding "1", i.e., making "16" instead of "6" and "17" instead of "7". She further alleged that at the instance of Shri O.P. Gupta, she was dubbed as a hardened criminal and two criminal cases were registered against her. She also points out that she was taken to Rampur from Chandigarh and she was dumped in a dark cell and she remained in the custody for about a week and was granted bail only by the District Judge, Rampur. Her contention is that all these were the schemes conceived by the respondent No. 2 to anyhow put her behind the bars. She points out that in one of the matters, respondent No. 2 Hargursharan Singh has claimed to be the owner on the basis of adverse possession of a land owned by her. She further points out that a mere look at the documents in Civil Suit could show that she was never in Rampur on 27.5.2002 when the plaint was supposed to have been filed.