LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-279

JASPAL KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On September 21, 2022
JASPAL KAUR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is for the quashing of FIR No.107 dtd. 27/4/2017 under Ss. 406/419/420/465/467/468/471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, order framing charges under Ss. 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 IPC dtd. 14/7/2017 (Annexure P-5), the charge-sheet dtd. 14/7/2017 (Annexure P-5/1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 107 dtd. 27/4/2017 under Ss. 406/419/420/465/467/468/471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, came to be registered at the instance of respondent No.3-Jaswinder Kaur, daughter of Asa Singh against Jasmer Singh son of Ajit Singh, Jaspal Kaur wife of Jasmer Singh, Pritpal Singh son of Surmukh Singh and Manjit Kaur wife of Piara Singh. The allegations as extracted from the FIR against the petitioner-Jaspal Kaur and the co-accused are as under:-

(3.) The aforementioned allegations were enquired into and it was found that Jasmer Singh had sold the land of the complainant to Pritpal Singh for a sum of Rs.40,00,000.00 after getting executed the General Power of Attorney dtd. 4/1/2011 secretly after misleading the complainant with whom he shared brotherly relations. It was also found that the petitioner and her husband Jasmer Singh had got sanctioned a limit of the bank loan for a sum of Rs.5,80,000.00 by keeping the land of the complainant as collateral. During the course of the enquiry, the parties had arrived at a settlement and furnished their respective affidavits that a compromise would be effected in due course. The husband of the petitioner-Jasmer Singh had admitted that he had received a consideration of Rs.40,00,000.00 on account of cheating upon the complainant and had opened an account with the State Bank of Patiala, Gajju Khera Branch using the photograph of his wife in place of the complainant. However, as the compromise could not fructify, the FIR came to be registered, which culminated in a report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C.