9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 945 - HC - CustomsQuashment of FIR Property in question repurchased which formed basis of the surety bonds - Section 482 of CrPC, 1973 Section 420 IPC Held that - Since, the land which had been sold by Petitioner s husband to one Sanjeev Goyal has been repurchased by him - Thus, presently Petitioner s husband is the owner of the property in question - Petitioner had furnished surety bonds along with her husband Thus, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose, as now property in question is again owned by her husband which formed basis of the surety bonds - Accordingly, FIR and Challan u/s 420 IPC and 120-B IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed Decided in favour of Applicant.
Issues involved:
Petition under Section 482 seeking quashing of FIR under Section 420 IPC and subsequent proceedings. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashing of FIR No. 3 dated 7-1-2007 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana, and all subsequent proceedings arising from it. The petitioner's counsel argued that the property in question, for which surety bonds were furnished, had been sold and repurchased by the petitioner's husband, making him the current owner. The prosecution's story involved the grant of an industrial license to M/s. Punjab Exports, with Harbhajan Singh Sandhu executing necessary surety bonds. However, Sandhu had sold the land of three units, including M/s. Fashion World International and M/s. Punjab Exports. The petitioner contended that the repurchase of the land by Sandhu confirmed her lack of involvement in the sale and purchase, indicating no fraudulent intent. Respondent No. 2 argued that the sale and repurchase of the land indicated an offense committed by the accused. The court noted that the property had been repurchased by Sandhu, making him the current owner, and that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner would serve no purpose as the property forming the basis of the surety bonds was now owned by her husband. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings related to it.
|
