COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. KAILASH RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter here concerns the stay of criminal proceedings on account of the pendency of a civil suit.

(2.) To narrate the factual background, early in March 1990, a draft for Rs. 1,67,500.00 in favour of M/s. Sandeep Knitwears payable at Ludhiana, was sent from Tattihalli in Karnataka. This was deposited by Leena Rani respondent in her account with the Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana, which had been opened by her just two days earlier on 14/03/1990. The other respondent Kailash Rani was the one who had identified Leena Rani to the Punjab National Bank. This Kailash Rani is the sister-in-law of Leena Rani. Kailash Rani is an employee in the subordinate Courts at Ludhiana.

(3.) Before, however, the draft for Rs. 1,67,500.00 could be withdrawn from the bank, an application was made to the bank by Manjit Kumar praying that the amount be not disbursed to Leena Rani, as he was, in fact, the owner of M/s. Sandeep Knitwears. A similar application was made to the bank a. week later on 30/03/1990, by Harbans Lal. He too claimed to be the owner of M/s. Sandeep Knitwears. Harbans Lal followed this up by lodging a report at Police Station Division No. 4, Ludhiana, on 1/04/1990 (First Information Report 29 of that day) against Leena Rani and Kailash Rani. A case under Ss. 406, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC was thereupon registered against Leena Rani and Kailash Rani.