Crl. Misc. No. M-24926 of 2010 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-24926 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.8.2011. Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny ........Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. M.S.Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 41 dated 04.02.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar City, District Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due to his relationship with the other co-accused. The only role attributed to the petitioner in the FIR was that the complainant had asked Kamal Nain Singh, Sunny and their father Balwinder Singh to sell her land. Thereafter, the entire transaction was done by the Crl. Misc. No. M-24926 of 2010 (O&M) -2 - other co-accused. Learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that all the accused in connivance with each other had defrauded the complainant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) reveals that the complainant had stated that she had asked Kamal Nain Singh, Sunny and their father Balwinder Singh qua sale of her land. Thereafter, Kamal Nain Singh and Balwinder Singh asked her to open an account at Amritsar so that the demand drafts could be deposited in the said account. The account of the complainant was opened with the bank on 07.8.2008 with the help of Balwinder Singh. The purchaser gave two drafts of ` 21,25,000/- each to Balwinder Singh. The said drafts were deposited with the bank. However, the complainant along with Balwinder Singh her nephew went to the bank for withdrawal of the money on 23.8.2008 and they came to know that an amount of ` 35,00,000/- had been withdrawn on 22.8.2008 and another amount of ` 1,40,000/- had been withdrawn on 23.8.2008 from the account. On inquiry, the complainant came to know that in fact Kamal Nain Singh had opened up a joint account with her without informing the same to her. Balwinder Singh reached the spot and told the complainant that she should withdraw the remaining amount from the bank and he would tell her about the facts on reaching home. While the complainant was withdrawing ` 6,00,000/- from the bank, Balwinder Singh left the spot and did not return back. Crl. Misc. No. M-24926 of 2010 (O&M) -3 - Thus, it appears that the petitioner has been involved in this case as he is the son of the accused Balwinder Singh. It is the accused Kamal Nain Singh and Balwinder Singh who had allegedly asked the complainant to open an account for deposit of the drafts. Balwinder Singh had taken the complainant to the bank for opening the account. The account of the complainant was jointly opened by the other accused in the name of Kamal Nain Singh. Apparently, the amount was withdrawn from the account by Kamal Nain Singh being joint account holder. As per Anneuxre R-1/T, inquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police and he found that ASI Balwinder Singh in connivance with his son Kamal Nain Singh had defrauded the complainant. The amount was also deposited by ASI Balwinder Singh in his account. No role is attributed to the petitioner in the said inquiry also. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 41 dated 04.02.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar City, District Amritsar , and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, qua the petitioner, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 25, 2011 Gurpreet