SWEETPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C") has been preferred for quashing FIR No. 149 dated 3.7.2013, registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana for offence punishable under Sections 328, 380, 420,120 -B of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and proceedings emanating therefrom qua the petitioner.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the son of Baljit Kaur, co -accused in the case and Baljit Kaur performed marriage with respondent No. 2/complainant after death of Nand Singh, her previous husband on 24.4.2010 which was got registered on 21.5.2010. The complainant has lodged the FIR against Baljit Kaur and the petitioner wherein most of the allegations have been levelled against Baljit Kaur against whom challan has been presented in the court and proceedings are pending. The petitioner has been indicted in the crime by raising certain general and vague allegations which are detailed at page 17 of Annexure P1, translated copy of the FIR. It is argued that there is no medical evidence that the complainant was administered any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug or other thing with an intent to cause hurt to him. Even the date on which the alleged occurrence when the complainant felt unconsciousness due to drinking of glass of milk purportedly given to him by Baljit Kaur, is not mentioned. No offence under Section 328 IPC is made out against the petitioner even if the allegations are taken on its face value.

(3.) COUNSEL for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the complainant had to move from pillar to post to book the accused in the crime committed by them. He approached this Court twice/thrice for initiation of action against the accused and eventually in pursuance of directions issued by this Court to look into grievance of the complainant, the instant FIR has been lodged. The complainant has levelled specific allegations that his signatures were obtained on blank papers after making him partially unconscious and affidavit Annexure P -5 has been prepared on the blank signatures of the complainant and the photograph appended on the affidavit was taken from his passport which was in possession of Baljit Kaur. It is further argued that disputed questions of fact are not amenable to adjudication under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, the petition may be dismissed. Counsel has further submitted that Baljit Kaur walked out of the matrimonial home and thereafter started residing with a person of Tarn Taran and duped him of his property and he has also made a complaint against her.