In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 36724 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 07, 2011 Usha Khanna ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner *** Gurdev Singh, J. Heard. The present petition has been filed by Usha Khanna, petitioner –accused, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail by way of issuing a direction to the Arresting Officer to release her on bail in the event of her arrest in FIR 369 dated 16.10.2011 registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC in Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar. She has contended therein that she has been falsely involved. In fact Kiran Aggarwal, complainant, and her husband were doing the Kitty business by making different groups. She has already paid the amount of the Kitty to the complainant and transactions with her were closed in the year 2004. The complainant declared herself insolvent and did not return the money. A dispute had arisen between them in March 2010, regarding which complaint was filed by the complainant under Sections 500 and 506 Crl. Misc. No. M- 36724 of 2011(O&M) -2- IPC whereas she herself had written a letter to the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar City, explaining every thing to the effect that the complainant was operating a chit business of auction and the person giving the highest bid was taking the committee and after the revival of the face value, the balance amount used to be paid in installments by the members of the committee. After the transactions were closed between them six years back, calculations are made and no amount was found due from each other. All the allegations levelled in the FIR are false and frivolous. If there is any thing due from her to the complainant, she can approached the civil court for the settlement of accounts and for the recovery of the money due. It was narrated by the complainant in the FIR that the petitioner by practicing a fraud upon her, took away ` 12,00,000/- of the committee and whenever she goes to her to demand that money, she misbehaves and gives beatings to her along with her son and daughter-in- law. She also narrated therein that the petitioner and her co-accused, about four years back, after misappropriating the money of different persons, got themselves declared insolvent and went to Delhi. The FIR was not recorded immediately on the presentation of the application by the complainant to the police but a detailed enquiry was conducted by the police and only after verifying all the facts, the FIR was registered. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the dispute between the parties was regarding the committees/Kitty business and that after the settlement of accounts, nothing remained due to the complainant from the petitioner and that a false FIR has been got lodged. He tried to refer to the documents annexed with the petition. Crl. Misc. No. M- 36724 of 2011(O&M) -3- From the documents so annexed with the petition it may be said that there was some transaction regarding the kitty business amongst the parties but the fact remains that the complainant came out with a categorical allegation against the petitioner that fraudulently she collected ` 12,00,000/- from her and did not repay that amount. Her averments were found to be correct during the enquiry conducted by the police. This Court does not find any ground to conclude that a false FIR has been got registered against the petitioner. Keeping in view the huge amount, so collected fraudulently, by the petitioner and the gravity of the offence, no ground is made out for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE December 07, 2011 PARAMJIT