Crl. Misc. No. M-34891 of 2010 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-34891 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 21.01.2011 Harjit Kaur ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. C.L. Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. Crl. Misc. No. 3415 of 2011 This is an application for placing on record Annexures P-3 and P-4. Application is allowed and Annexures P-3 and P-4 are taken on record. Crl. Misc. No. 62049 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-34891 of 2010 The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner-Harjit Kaur for quashing of order dated 10.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala and order dated 3.7.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that neither there is any allegation with regard to handing over the money nor sending the Crl. Misc. No. M-34891 of 2010 (O&M) (2) son of the complainant abroad. All allegations are against Amrik Singh and not against the petitioner and summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a civil suit for recovery of the said amount has been filed by the complainant, which has been dismissed and against that order no appeal has been filed till date. The petitioner has also filed revision petition against the summoning order, which has also been dismissed. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the allegations are general in nature against all the accused and there is no specific allegation against the present petitioner and the petitioner cannot be summoned only on the basis of statement of the complainant. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the summoning order, order passed in the revision as well as contents of the FIR. Although, the suit filed by the complainant has been dismissed but in the statement made by complainant, it has been specifically mentioned that Amrik Singh Tofan, his wife Harjit Kaur @ Mattu, his second wife Pawandeep Kaur and his father-in-law were there at the time of agreement to send the son of the complainant abroad and it was settled between the parties that an amount of ` 6 lacs were to be given. Since there are specific allegations in the statement made by the complainant as well in the FIR, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned orders. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. January 21, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-34891 of 2010 (O&M) (3) Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No