- (1.) THE petition is filed praying for quashing the First Information Report No. 4 dated 23.1.2011 under Section 8/9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station Haibowal, Ludhiana.
(2.) THE First Information Report lodged by the 3rd respondent Rakesh Kumar Tangri would read that on 21.1.2011 his daughter Preety Tangri, the 2nd respondent herein proceeded to Khalsa College, Kumhar Mandi but did not return. He contacted petitioner Angrej Singh, Lambardar and informed him that his servant Tajinder Singh was also on the run. Petitioner Angrej Singh, Lambardar, came to the place of complainant Rakesh Kumar Tangri and informed him that he had already interacted with the police. He also demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh . The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 32,000/ - and informed accused Angrej Singh, Lambardar that rest of the money would be paid to him the moment his daughter return. The money was parted with in the presence of Rupa Rani, wife Somnath, brother and Vinod Kumar, friend of the complainant. The daughter of the complainant did not returned, but the accused demanded rest of the money and started threatening the complainant. The complainant having come to know that accused Angrej Singh usurped the money himself even without interacting with the police, lodged a complaint.
(3.) THE fact remains that the charges were framed as against the petitioner/accused. Some of the witnesses have already been examined. At this stage, the present petition invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying for quashing the First Information Report and the consequential proceedings initiated thereon. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the protection petition filed by the 2nd and 4th respondents, themarriage of 2nd respondent with the 4 th respondent was reportedlysolemnized on 24.1.2011, whereas in the divorce petition filed by the parties based on mutual consent the date of marriage was referred as 24.1.2010. It is his submission that if at all the marriage had taken place on 24.1.2010 there would have been no occasion for the 2nd respondent Preety Tangri to vanish from the residence of 3rd respondent Rakesh Kumar Tangri. Under such circumstances, the 3rd respondent would not have parted with any money. It is his further submission that the foundation laid in the First Information Report is shaky on account of such irreconcilable stand taken by the 2 nd and 4threspondents in the protection petition and divorce partition filed in the competent courts. The money allegedly paid by the 3rd respondent to the accused was also not recovered. The other F.I.R. registered asagainst the 4th resopndent for the offence under Section 366 Cr.P.C. was also withdrawn by the 3rd respondent.;