ANITA RAJPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 276 dated 10.6.2009 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Civil Line, Rohtak District Rohtak and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had become owner of the house in question in view of the compromise effected between the parties in civil litigation vide award dated 15.4.2006 (Annexure P4). Thereafter, husband of the petitioner allegedly sold the house in question to the complainant -Pritam Kaur. Petitioner had no concern with the said sale deed as the petitioner had neither signed the sale deed as a vender nor as an attesting witness. Hence, petitioner could not be criminally prosecuted for any criminal act if any committed by her husband. Further, accused Sunil Rajpal has already deposited the sale price received by him in this Court while seeking relief of anticipatory bail in this case.

(2.) LEARNED State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.

(3.) IN the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court has held as under: -