- (1.) The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing FIR No.106 dated 25.5.2013 under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Nabha Road, Patiala. Challenge has also been laid to the Challan presented under Section 173 Cr.PC (Annexure P-13) (colly) along with all other subsequent proceedings. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that he does not press this petition qua petitioner No.2 Daljit Kaur Sabbharwal, as petitioner No.1 does not possess a valid power of attorney of petitioner No.2. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as not pressed qua petitioner No.2. Reply on behalf of respondent No.1-State has already been filed. The said reply suggests that the petitioner No.2 who is permanent resident of Canada has stayed about 15 days at Patiala in her in-laws house and thereafter, went to Canada. In the month of December, 2008, she came to India and returned back with assurance that she will call the complainantrespondent No.5 to Canada. On 11.4.2010, she sent sponsorship of complainant and demanded 10,000/- dollars from him.
(2.) The reply further reveals that on 21.4.2011, the complainant got visa of Canada and went there on 8.6.2011. However, when he reached Toronto Airport, he was taken into custody by the immigration officials as petitioner No.2-accused had got cancelled his sponsorship. Then, after remaining in custody for 80 days, he came back to India. In this manner, petitioner No.1 Joginder Singh Sabbharwal and his daughter Daljit Kaur Sabbharwal i.e. petitioner No.2 have induced the complainant and his parents to deceive approximately Rs.29-30 lacs for calling the complainant to Canada. Neither petitioner No.2 returned the money nor took the complainant to Canada.
(3.) Learned State counsel has stated that after completion of investigation, the Challan has been presented in the Court on 12.2.2014 and the charge-sheet has been framed and the prosecution witnesses are being examined. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, after registration of the case, the Challan as provided under Section 173 Cr.PC has been presented in the Court. On the basis of Challan so presented, the trial Court has framed charge-sheet against the petitioner.;