- (1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint bearing No.296 of 2014 dated 12.08.2009 titled 'Lt.Col.(retd.) Daljit Singh v. Gurpreet Kaur and others', under Sections 406/420 IPC and summoning order dated 29.01.2010 as well as order dated 04.11.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar, whereby an application for directing petitioner No.1 Gurpreet Kaur to give her specimen handwriting, has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, limits his prayer to challenge complaint No.296 of 2014 dated 12.08.2009 and summoning order dated 29.01.2010 only and does not press the relief qua order dated 04.11.2014.
(2.) Complaint dated 12.08.2009 had been filed by respondent No.2 Lt.Col.(retd.) Daljit Singh against petitioner No.1 Gurpreet Kaur, who is his daughter-in-law as well as petitioner No.2 Harpreet Singh Dhillon and Hardip Kaur, who are brother and mother of petitioner No.1 - Gurpreet Kaur. As per the allegations in the complaint, Gurpreet Kaur was married to complainant's son Kulminder Singh. His son left India and remained abroad for two years. On coming back to India, he started living separately from petitioner No.1 Gurpreet Kaur whereas, she continued to live in the house of complainant i.e., her father-in-law at Defence Colony, Jalandhar. Complainant is stated to be running a school, namely, Surindra International Public School at village Shanker Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar. Petitioner No.1 Gurpreet Kaur was employed as a teacher in the said school. Complainant's wife had died in the year 2000 and petitioner No.1 was the only person living in the house alongwith complainant and domestic help. Complainant suffered a heart attack in the year 2007 in the month of May and was ultimately admitted to Fortis Hospital at Mohali. As per the allegations, petitioner No.1 Gurpreet Kaur while taking the advantage of his absence took away ancestral jewellery and other articles of the household belonging to the complainant in connivance with the other accused persons. Furthermore, complainant had been negotiating purchase of a house at Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Jalandhar. He had paid an advance of Rs. 50,000/-. Accused persons informed the complainant while he was admitted at Fortis Hospital that the seller of the house wanted the sale-deed to be executed immediately or else he would sell the sane to someone else. For this purpose, he arranged a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- through his friend Baljit Singh and handed over the money to petitioner Gurpreet Kaur and co-accused with the specific instructions that the sale-deed shall be executed in the name of the complainant alone. Later he came to know that the sale-deed had been got executed by Gurpreet Kaur in her own name. Despite request, articles were not returned neither remedial measures had been taken with respect to the sale-deed. Hence, the complaint was filed.
(3.) It is submitted that the accused No.3, Hardip Kaur has since passed away. Petitioners were summoned vide order dated 29.01.2010, Annexure P3. Evidence of the complainant is stated to be complete. The trial court on 04.11.2014 has allowed the application filed by the complainant for directing petitioner-accused Gurpreet Kaur to give her specimen handwriting in the court. Complainant had contended that the list of jewellery was prepared by petitioner-Gurpreet Kaur in her own handwriting whereas, she has disputed the existence of any such list. Therefore, for effective adjudication of the case, the trial court directed petitioner No.1 Gurpreet Kaur to give her specimen handwriting.;