NUTAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) challenging the orders dated 8.2.2010 and 1.3.2011.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had applied for a chemist shop to be opened by the society in the campus but was not allotted any shop. However, Santosh Kumar, co-accused of the petitioner by playing a fraud on the society got the chemist shop allotted to him in the name of the petitioner. Petitioner was not aware of the said fact. During investigation, petitioner was found innocent and had been placed in column No. 2. Earlier petitioner was ordered to be summoned under Section 190 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 22.8.2006. However, the said order was set aside by the Court of Revision vide order dated 5.3.2007 (Annexure P-2). Now the petitioner had been ordered to be summoned to face the trial on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. There was no material on record against the petitioner. During investigation, it was found that petitioner had not signed the documents in question and had not been entrusted with the medicines.

(3.) Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the shop in question was in the name of the petitioner.