(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of the order dated 30/1/1989, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh, declining to discharge the petitioner of the charges under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code framed against the petitioner.
(2.) In brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition as emerge from the First Information Report, are that the petitioner while working as Nurse in the P.G.I., Chandigarh, misrepresented to her co-staff Nurses Satpal Sidhu, Saira, Lekh Raj and Neelam Nath that her brother Raja is a travel agent and services of nurses are required in Saudi Arabia and they could also get a job for each one of them for Rs. 10,000.00 per month. Both the petitioner and her brother Raja subsequently met the aforesaid co-staff nurses of the petitioner and assured them that she and her brother would send them to Saudi Arabia and would get a job for them in 10 days time. The petitioner also represented to her aforesaid co-staff nurses that she would also accompany them abroad and further told that Rs. 12,000.00- will have to be spent on each person. After another three days, the petitioner and her brother Raja came to the hostel and took Rs. 4,000.00 from each of the aforesaid three nurses for getting their passport and further told that they should get the remaining amount of Rs. 8,000.00 ready with them. There after, they were taken to Delhi by the petitioner. At Delhi her co-accused Chunni Lal also met them and on their misrepresentation Rs. 200.00- were charged from three nurses for medical check up. Later on, the aforesaid three nurses returned to Chandigarh. They were asked by the petitioner and her co-accused to arrange for the remaining amount of Rs. 8,000.00. The petitioner or her co-accused neither returned the money nor their pass-ports. Raja and Chunni co-accused of the petitioner agreed in writing to return the money in two instalments. This promisc too was not fulfilled.
(3.) The learned counsel for the parties were heard. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended by her counsel that the trial Court has erred in law in framing the charge under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner and that the offences contemplated are antithesis of each other. The trial Court has only framed charge under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. in the alternative. The facts alleged in the First. Information Report make out a prima facie case for framing charge under Sections 406 and 1420 of the Indian, Penal Code in the alternative. The evidence in the case on behalf of the prosecution is Act to be produced. If at a subsequent stage it is found that no offence with regard to particular charge has been made out against the petitioner she can be discharged or acquitted in respect of that particular offence or even in respect of both these offences. The impugned order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity and no ground to interfere at this stage has been made out. This petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously according to law.