Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kawaljit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 November, 2011
Criminal Misc. No. M-7554 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-7554 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.11.2011.
Kawaljit Kaur ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Palvinder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab,
for respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. H.R. Nohria, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL)
By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Kawaljit Kaur-petitioner seeks quashing of First Information Report No.07 dated January 14th, 2011, under Sections 419, 420, 447, 448, 467, 468, 471 and 511/120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar, Amritsar.
2. Prosecution was launched on the statement of Darshana Kumari. It was alleged that on the basis of forged power of attorney, Kawaljit Kaur tried to take over the possession of the plot bearing Nos.225 and 226 situated in Sri Guru Har Rai Avenue, Rakh Sikhargarh, Amritsar-2, Amritsar on October 13th, 2010. She had also demolished the walls and pillars on the basis of forged documents. She also threatened her (complainant) with dire consequences. Apart from the present FIR, two other FIRs bearing Nos.277/2008 and 96/2008, under Section 420 etc. IPC were also registered in Police Station Sadar, Amritsar against her (petitioner).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that District Attorney (Legal) has made reference to the prosecution Criminal Misc. No. M-7554 of 2011 (O&M) -2- that so far as preparation of forged power of attorney by the petitioner is concerned, for that FIR No.277 of 2008 has already been registered and as per the report of the Investigator the present FIR was registered after investigation conducted by Senior Police Official and complainant could not place on record any evidence to show that petitioner has taken possession of the plots of the complainant.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. So far as FIR No.277 of 2008 is concerned, at this stage, report of the District Attorney (Legal) cannot be taken into consideration nor it has been placed on record. Not only that, it has also been stated that she had demolished the walls and pillars of the plot just to take the possession thereof and she also threatened her with dire consequences. To prove the allegations, evidence is yet to be led by the prosecution. To quash the FIR on the aforesaid premises shall not be justified.
5. In this view of the matter, present petition is hereby dismissed.
22.11.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) neetu JUDGE