SARITA DODE Vs. STATE AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein for quashing of order dated 14.8.2012 by virtue of which she has been summoned in Complaint Case No.10/1/12, registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri to face the trial for an offence under Section 420/380/34 IPC.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no case under Section 380 or 420 IPC is made out warranting the summoning of the petitioner. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the court to the impugned order and the documents filed along with the petition.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions. The respondent No.2 filed a complaint case against the petitioner. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant, Suraj Bharti, was a permanent resident of Khasra No.67, Village Sahurpur, near Chadanhola Bus Stop, New Delhi- 110074. He met accused No.1, Sarita Dode, the present petitioner, in the office of Davish Group in the month of April, 2011, where she was working as a receptionist. The said company was dealing in money trading. It is alleged by the complainant/respondent No.2 that the petitioner became familiar with him and in the month of May, 2011, he was induced by the petitioner to part with a sum of Rs. 1 lac on the pretext that she would invest the same in some money trading business which will double his amount to Rs. 2 lacs within a period of two months. On the basis of the said representation, the respondent No.2 is alleged to have handed over an amount of Rs. 1 lac to the petitioner in the presence of Vishal Baitha and Dhanraj Dode, who are accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively in the complaint. This amount was handed over on 10.5.2011. After a couple of months, that is, in the month of August, 2011, the respondent No.2 stated that he demanded his money back from the petitioner but the amount was not returned, on the contrary, the petitioner is alleged to have given a photocopy of her PAN card and voter ID card to him with a view to gain his faith regarding the genuineness of the investment being made by her.