RAJVINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) seeking quashing of the orders dated 24.4.2012 (Annexure P -6) and 2.2.2013 (Annexure P -7). Petitioner has further prayed that FIR No. 59 dated 13.6.2011, under Section 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib, be quashed. Prosecution story, in brief, as per the FIR, is that complainant had agreed to purchase 48 kanals of land. At the time of execution of the agreement to sell, Rs. 30,00,000/ - had been paid towards earnest money to Sukhwinder Singh in the presence of the petitioner (wife of Sukhwinder Singh). Sukhwinder Singh as well as the petitioner had assured the complainant that the sale deed would be executed in his favour as the son of the petitioner at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, was a minor. Petitioner took Rs. 60,000/ - from the complainant. However, later complainant came to know that an agreement to sell had been earlier executed by the accused in favour of Jaswant Singh. Now a compromise had been effected between the petitioner and Jaswant Singh.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. Petitioner was not a signatory to the agreement to sell in question.

(3.) AFTER thorough investigation of the case, challan was presented against the petitioner and her co -accused. Charges were framed against the petitioner and her co -accused vide order dated 24.4.2012 (Annexure P -6). At the stage of framing of the charges, Trial Court is only required to see as to whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. Revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Trial court whereby charges were ordered to be framed against her, was dismissed by the Court of Revision vide order dated 2.2.2013 (Annexure P -7). In the present case, the Trial Court had rightly ordered the framing of the charges against the petitioner as prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner was made out.