NARDEV SINGHA RANA Vs. POOJA MONGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by filing present petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of criminal complaint no. 145 dtd. 25/4/2017 filed under Sec. 384, 406, 420, 506 read with 120-B of the IPC and summoning order dtd. 18/2/2019(Annexure P-6) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar.

(2.) Succinctly, the facts are that the petitioner-accused's son namely Sharad Kumar Rana approached the respondent-complainant in March, 2016 for arranging tourist visa for Macau, China for himself. He also expressed a desire for employment abroad, however, the respondent informed him that she does not deal with work permits but recommended co-accused Nirmal Singh and Balwinder Singh, partners in M/s N.B. Overseas. On insistence of co- accused Sharad Kumar Rana, the respondent, in liaison with M/s N.B. Overseas, arranged for the said work permit along with the air tickets. The petitioner's son left for Macau, however, the petitioner filed a false police complaint dtd. 7/9/2016 against the respondent to extort money from her. During the investigation of the same, a compromised was arrived at between the petitioner, co-accused Nirmal Singh and Balwinder Singh with the respondent. The accused backed out from the compromise and approached the respondent to settle the balance. The respondent had received Rs.3,70,000.00 from Sharad Kumar Rana out of which she had arranged for a visa as well as round trip ticket to Macau, along with boarding and lodging for 10 days. The respondent remitted Rs.1,00,000.00 to the account of M/s N.B. Overseas and as such, no amount was due on part of the respondent to the petitioner's son.

(3.) The petitioner demanded Rs.1,00,000.00 to close the matter but the matter was settled at Rs.90,000.00. The respondent issued a cheque bearing no. 024773 for a sum of Rs.90,000.00 as a security cheque. Thereafter, the respondent transferred Rs.90,000.00 to the account of petitioner's son through RTGS and asked the petitioner to return the security cheque. However, the petitioner, instead of returning the cheque, put it up for encashment and the same was dishonoured. The respondent was served a legal notice and the petitioner and his son threatened malicious prosecution, in order to extort money from her, causing her to file the instant complaint.