VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This petition has filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing FIR No. 173 dated 1.12.1992, registered at Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh, for the offences under sections 420/467/468/471/120-B, Indian Penal Code, qua the petitioner, as well as the order dated 22.3.1995 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, whereby the petitioner along with his co-accused has been charged for the aforesaid offences.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the complainant - Smt. Santosh Kumari is stated to have purchased plot No. 2395 situated in Dadu Majra Colony from one Piare Lal for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. According to the allegations levelled by Smt. Santosh Kumari, said Shri Piare Lal represented that he had purchased the plot in question from one Lattoo Ram son of Hardev Singh, under a power of attorney executed in his favour and was in possession of the said plot. Having been satisfied with the representation made by Shri Piare Lal, Smt. Santosh Kumari paid Rs. 30,000/- to Shri Piare Lal, who in turn executed a power of attorney in her favour and also handed over possession of the plot to her. She got constructed a house thereon. Later on, Piare Lal did not hand over the original power of attorney purported to have been executed by Lattoo Ram in his favour. Smt. Santosh Kumari made enquiry from Lattoo Ram son of Hardev Singh and discovered that this plot was never allotted to him nor he had transferred the same on power of attorney to Piare Lal. She also made enquiry from the Estate Office and it was discovered that the said plot was never allotted to Lattoo Ram. It has been alleged that Shri Piare Lal had cheated and defrauded Smt. Santosh Kumari of Rs. 30,000/-. On these allegations, first information report in question was registered.

(3.) THE petitioner has sought the quashing of the first information report as well as the charge (Annexure P-5) qua him on the ground that on the basis of the allegations contained in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, no evidence has been collected to show that the petitioner ever entered into a conspiracy with Piare Lal to defraud Smt. Santosh Kumari. It has been stated in the petition that he was not a party to the transaction between Piare Lal and Smt. Santosh Kumari nor he was a party to the transaction purported to have been entered into between Lattoo Ram and Piare Lal. It has been further stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the SHO of the Police Station at the instance of the father-in-law of the petitioner on account of his matrimonial dispute with his wife.