SURABHI RAWAT AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Surabhi Rawat And Another
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The applicants, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash charge sheet dated 01.05.2008 as well as the proceedings of criminal case no. M-110 of 2008 State vs. Lt. Col. B.S.Rawat and others, under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.
(2.) An FIR was lodged at the instance of Siddharth Singh Baisora (respondent no.2) against nine accused persons, including the present applicants in PS Kotwali Sadar, Dehradun on 08.08.2008, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. After the investigation, a Final Report was submitted against six accused persons, and charge sheet was submitted only against present applicants and Saket Rawat (non-applicant).
Whereas, applicant no. 1 is the wife of respondent no. 2, applicant no.2 is the father-in-law of the said respondent. Non-applicant Saket Rawat is the brother of applicant no. 1.
(3.) The applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 wanted to invest some money in property in India, and therefore, on 25.05.2004, they executed a joint power of attorney in the name of applicant no. 2 for operation of their joint NRI account by the applicant no. 2 and, thereafter, on 26.09.2005, the applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 further executed a power of attorney in the name of applicant no. 2 for purchasing the property in India in their names. Thereafter applicant no. 2 purchased several properties in Dehradun in the name of applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2. Apart from those sale-deeds, the applicant no. 2 also booked some plots in the name of applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2. The allegation against the accused-applicants is that the accused persons, on 28.10.2006, withdrew Rs. 10 lacs from the joint account of applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2. According to the complaint, it appears that the accused persons committed breach of trust in respect of the money earned by respondent no. 2. Since it was not possible for the respondent no. 2 to come from United States of America, therefore respondent no. 2 appointed one Ravindra Singh Bisht as his power of attorney. The effort was made by him to lodge the report in PS Kotwali, but no action was taken by the PS concerned on his complaint.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.