IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-52973 of 2007 Date of decision : October 05, 2009 Deepa Kathuria ....Petitioner versus Prakash Lal Dua ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Deepa Kathuria has filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing of criminal complaint dated 23.12.2006 (Annexure P/1) instituted by respondent Prakash Lal Dua against petitioner and three others and also for quashing of summoning order dated 25.9.2007 (Annexure P/2) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused no. 4 in the impugned complaint whereas her husband Ajay Kathuria has been arrayed as accused no. 1 in the complaint. Accused nos. 2 and 3 are daughter and wife respectively of the complainant-respondent. It has, interalia, been alleged in the complaint that accused no. 2 under pressure obtained a Will in her favour regarding a shop from the complainant and thereafter accused nos. 2 and 3 under pressure obtained signatures of the complainant on blank Criminal Misc. No. M-52973 of 2007 -2- papers and converted the same into an agreement to sell in favour of accused no. 1. The only allegation against accused no. 4 i.e. present petitioner is that on 17.9.2006, the petitioner and her husband came to the shop of the complainant and manhandled him and threatened him. However, vide summoning order dated 25.9.2007 (Annexure P/2), accused nos. 1, 2 and 4 have been summoned for offences under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC only. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that even in the impugned complaint, no role has been attributed to the petitioner regarding offences under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC for which the petitioner has been summoned along with accused nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent could not refer to any allegation in the complaint for offences under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the petitioner. Consequently, prosecution of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences for which she has been summoned along with accused nos. 1 and 2 would result in miscarriage of justice and would amount to abuse of process of law. There is no ground for prosecuting the petitioner for the aforesaid offences because there is not even an averment in the complaint against the petitioner relating to the said offences. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned criminal complaint dated 23.12.2006 (Annexure P/1) and summoning order dated 25.9.2007 (Annexure P/2) are quashed qua the petitioner only along with all consequential proceedings against her. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 05, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'