RAHMINDER KAUR Vs. S.F.INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner / second accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.933 of 2006 against the order made in Crl.M.P.No.974 of 2005 in C.C.No.13029 of 2005 on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Court, Egmore.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are as follows:-

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the case was taken on file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Court, Egmore as C.C.No.13029 of 2005. During the case proceedings, the second accused i.e., the wife of first accused had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.974 of 2005 in C.C.No.13029 of 2005 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge her from the proceedings in C.C.No.13029 of 2005. It was submitted that the petitioner was a house wife, and had never represented that she was the owner of the land situated at Ambatur and she had never said that she has got the said property as her share from ancestral property. It was submitted that she never came forward to settle the issue and to repay the amount and had never requested the complainant not to proceed with any criminal action since she is not aware of the allegations. It was submitted that if at all any cheque has been issued, it should have been issued by her husband, i.e., the first accused and has stated that the said account is not a joint account and that it is "either or survivor account" and she has not signed the said cheque and as such she is not liable to be prosecuted for a criminal offence. It was also submitted that the petitioner is not aware of any civil suit and that she is not a party to any suit before any Court. It was submitted that she had sent a legal notice to the complainant on 28.09.2004 informing him that she is in no way connected to the alleged transaction. It was submitted that she is not liable to pay any amount to the petitioner as there was no legal debt. Hence, it was prayed to discharge her from the proceedings in C.C.No.13029 of 2005.