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.) This prosecution was initiated on the basis of the First Information Report (FIR) dated 27.2.2004 lodged by one Hargursharan Singh (complainant) against the appellant herein, alleging the offences under aforementioned Sections. As per the said complainant, by respondent no.2 one Amrinder Kaur and her husband Col. Hargobind Singh owned agricultural property, bearing Khata Nos.40 and 2. They were unable to look after the property and, therefore, appointed Hargursharan Singh, respondent No.2 herein (the real brother of Col. Hargobind Singh), as their general attorney. Respondent No.2 herein, by virtue of general power of attorney, sold the aforementioned land and delivered possession to the purchasers. He described appellant Parminder Kaur as a stranger. Two Civil Suits came to be filed by the appellant, Parminder Kaur, claiming to be holding Power of Attorney for Amrinder Kaur, against the purchasers. They were Civil Suit Nos.266 of 2002 and 267 of 2002. In those Civil Suits, she prayed for the cancellation of the Sale Deeds. According to the prosecution, while instituting these suits on 27.5.2002, the appellant had filed a false affidavit that she had come to know regarding the Sale Deed only on 16.5.2002 and had obtained a certified copy of Revenue Record on 27.5.2002. According to the complainant, in fact, the appellant had actually moved for the certified copy of Khatauni on 6.5.2002 and had already received the copy on 7.5.2002. On that allegation, it was contended in the FIR that she had committed the offences as alleged. The High Court took the view that the FIR, as well as, the material collected by the prosecution were good enough at least to proceed and it could not be said that no offence was disclosed from the same. It is this judgment of the High Court, which is challenged before us.