Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rekha Rani vs State Of Haryana on 11 November, 2013
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Criminal Misc. No. M-37241 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-37241 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.11.2013.
Rekha Rani ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Criminal Misc. No.46299 of 2013 Allowed as prayed for.
Criminal Misc. No.46300 of 2013 This application is for placing on record affidavit of petitioner as Annexure P-4 and authorisation letter dated 14.08.2013 as Annexure P-5.
Application is allowed and Annexures P-4 and P-5 are taken on record.
Criminal Misc. No. M-37241 of 2013 The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.211 dated 17.09.2013 registered under Sections 379, 420, 408, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Rani Neetu 2013.11.12 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-37241 of 2013 (O&M) 2 Mullana, District Ambala.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a woman and is only a sleeping partner in the commission agent shop and has no concern with the day to day business transactions. Co-accused of the petitioner, who are husband and son of the petitioner, are already in custody. Learned counsel also submits that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner.
Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the contents of the FIR and other documents available on the file.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner is only a sleeping partner is contrary to the documents as it has been mentioned in the affidavit submitted by the petitioner herself that she is owner of the firm whereas in the petition, it has been mentioned that she is a sleeping partner. Wrong averment has been made in the petition that the petitioner is only a sleeping partner and has no concern with the day to day business transactions of the firm. The allegations against the petitioner are that the firm has supplied 17,000 bags of paddy to the complainant firm- M/s Markendeshwar Rice Mill in the year 2012. In the investigation conducted by the Police, it has come on record that bills pertaining to 17,000 bags of paddy were issued by the petitioner in connivance with other accused persons. The bills regarding 3507 bags were not Rani Neetu 2013.11.12 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-37241 of 2013 (O&M) 3 issued whereas price of these bags was obtained, which caused wrongful loss to the complainant, which was to the tune of `19,17,105.6 paisa. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are contrary to the facts and allegations in the FIR. The case of the petitioner is at par with the other accused persons, who are in custody and no recovery whatsoever has been effected so far and it cannot be said that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner.
Hence, no ground is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The petition is dismissed as such.
11.11.2013 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
neetu JUDGE
Rani Neetu
2013.11.12 10:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh