9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y bonds qua the said property to Central Excise and Customs Department. But now, husband of the petitioner had repurchased the property and was, thus, owner of the property qua which surety bonds had been furnished by him. 3. Learned State counsel, as well as counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition. 4. Prosecution story, in brief, is that industrial licence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bhajan Singh Sandhu has confirmed that the Petitioner has no role in the sale and purchase of the land. The repurchase of land further confirms there was no mala fide intention and land was sold in the normal course of business. There was no fraudulent intention to avoid the payment of duty. There seems no reason to continue with the proceedings when the land has been repurchase. Reply to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 3 dated 7-1-2007 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana, Challan dated 19-7-2008 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
