RAMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contour of the facts which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that having read the advertisement in 'Ajit Newspaper', the complainant -Tarsem Singh son of Sadhu Singh, (for brevity "the complainant") has applied for the allotment of petrol pump in open category of Rural Marketing Plan at Tanda Urmurh, District Gurdaspur. He could not get the allotment of petrol pump for want of complete papers. According to the complainant accused Jaimal Kumar claiming himself to be a Manager of the Oil Company met him and promised the allotment of the petrol pump, in case the complainant would pay him an amount of Rs. 10 lacs as bribe money. However, the matter was settled for Rs. 8 lacs. Consequently, the complainant paid the amount of Rs. 8 lacs to the husband of the petitioner in her presence. The accused has neither got the allotment letter of the petrol pump as promised nor returned the pointed amount. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecutions claimed that petitioner, her husband and other co -accused with their common intention have cheated the complainant and misappropriated the amount of Rs. 8 lacs on false promise. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner and her other co -accused vide FIR No. 26 dated 17.04.2012 (Annexure P -1) on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Division No. 2, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, in the manner depicted here -in -above.

(2.) AFTER completion of the investigation, the police submitted a final police report, the accused were, accordingly, charge sheeted for the commission of indicated offence, and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution by the trial Court.

(3.) THE case set up by the petitioner, in brief insofar as relevant, is that the complainant has lodged the impugned FIR against her with a mala fide intention. Her name is not mentioned in the initial complaint, but later on added in the police report. She was not instrumental in the allotment of petrol pump to the complainant. No offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against her. The trial Court is stated to have framed the charges against her without any legal basis. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner has sought to quash the impugned FIR, chargesheet and subsequent proceedings arising thereto.