KULBIR KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this revision petition preferred under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, 'Code'), petitioner has sought quashing/setting aside of order dated September 11, 2014 (Annexure P -1) passed by ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala by virtue of which petitioner has been summoned to face trial under Section 319 of the Code to stand trial along with co -accused in case FIR No. 338, dated July 27, 2009, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali Patiala, District Patiala (Annexure P -2).

(2.) IN response to the notice of motion issued to the respondents, Mr. RPS Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 -State whereas Mr. Ashok Goel, Advocate represented respondent No.2.

(3.) WHILE assailing impugned order dated September 11, 2014 (Annexure P -1), it has been ebulliently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare perusal of complaint and summoning order transpires that a crude attempt has been made by respondent No.2 -complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner. In fact, a perusal of FIR reveals that a general, vague and omnibus allegations have been levelled against petitioner, who is none else but the wife of co -accused -Daljeet Singh @ Prince . There is nothing on the record to suggest, even in the FIR that she was working with her husband -Daljeet Singh @ Prince at the time of alleged receipt of money for sending Mandeep Singh abroad or at any subsequent stage. Even, a compromise has also been arrived at between the parties and cheque was also issued by Daljeet Singh @ Prince and not by petitioner, regarding which a separate complaint has also been filed by complainant -Jagir Singh against Daljeet Singh @ Prince. It has simply been mentioned that though FIR has been registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against petitioner, her husband -Daljeet Singh @ Prince and one Karanveer Singh @ Jimy but during investigation of this case, petitioner was found innocent and at the time of presentation of report under Section 173 (2 ) of the Code, she was placed in column No.2. Meaning thereby, that there was no cogent, convincing and prima facie evidence against her and allegations levelled by complainant were found to be false. On the basis of same evidence, she has been summoned to face trial, which is absolutely impermissible. Accordingly, impugned order is liable to be set aside/quashed by way of acceptance of instant revision petition.