LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-840

KULDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On May 06, 2014
KULDIP SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KULDIP Singh and Jagdeep Singh -petitioners have filed this petition against the State of Punjab, Darshan Singh and ASI Gian Singh, Investigating Officer under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.6 dated 9.9.2011 (Annexure -P.10) registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 34 IPC at Police Station NRI, Ludhiana City and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in the interest of justice.

(2.) THE brief facts as stated in the petition are that complainant - Darshan Singh submitted a complaint letter to Manager, UCO Bank, Alamgir, Ludhiana with the allegations that the petitioner No.1 Kuldip Singh has withdrawn Rs. 5 Lacs from his account No.28646 in unlawful manner without informing him. The complainant requested that an inquiry be conducted and his money should be got refunded. Petitioner No.1 and the complainant are not stranger to each other and the complainant is a relative of the petitioner. The petitioner was in possession and was cultivating 10 acres of land belonging to complainant on 'Theka' for the last ten years. Similarly, for the last 11 years whenever the complainant came to India, he had been staying at the house of the petitioner. The account in question is joint account of the petitioner and the complainant and either or survivor can operate it. It is further stated that the account is being operated either by depositing the money in it or by withdrawing money from it. The complainant rang the petitioner that he has to go to marriage of the grand -daughter of his widowed 'Bhabhi' at Village Lasara and asked the petitioner to withdraw Rs. 5 Lacs from the joint account and hand over the same to the complainant.

(3.) AT the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that DSP has held inquiry, report of which is Annexure -P.14, and has given the report in favour of the petitioner. He further argued that the opinion of the District Attorney is also in favour of the petitioner. He further argued that a civil suit is pending and the present case is also of civil nature.