Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GURDIAL SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gurdial Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors - CRM-53978-m-2002 [2006] RD-P&H 1233 (28 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc.No. 53978-M of 2002

Date of Decision: March 8, 2006

Gurdial Singh .................................... Petitioner Versus

The State of Punjab and others ...................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. N.S.Gill, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sanjeev K Arora, Advocate

for the complainant.

....

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral)

This order shall dispose off Crl. Misc.No. 53978-M of 2002 and Crl. Misc. No. 3547-M of 2003 as in both these petitions the quashing of FIR No. 175 dated 29.7.2002 under Section 420 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Hoshiarpur has been prayed for.

As per the allegations in the FIR (Annexure P-1) one Ashok Kumar opened an account in the State Bank of India at Hoshiarpur. He deposited a bank draft dated 7.7.2000 issued by the State Bank of India South Hall,, Middlesex, London, which has been drawn on the State Bank of India Faridabad in his account. The proceeds of the said draft to the tune of Rs.5,67,600/- were credited to the account of Ashok Kumar out of which he withdrew Rs.67,000/- and transferred the balance amount to the account of the petitioner-Gurdial Singh. The petitioner also got a draft prepared for Rs.4,00,000/- from his account and withdrew the balance amount.

Subsequently, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Anil Kumar and Mrs. Shanta Kumar resident of 340 Wellinster Road, Hounslow-SJB- England informed the bank that the draft in question belonged to their father [ 2 ]

Crl. Misc.No. 53978-M of 2002

whose name is also Ashok Kumar. Accordingly, an inquiry was conducted by the officials of the bank and Ashok Kumar admitted that the draft in question did not belong to him and was given to him by the petitioner.

Ashok Kumar returned the entire amount to the petitioner who has further remitted the entire amount of Rs.5,67,600/- to the original complainant i.e.

Anil Kumar and Mrs. Shanta Kumar of England and also the State Bank of India, Hoshiarpur.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that as the entire amount in question has already been paid by him not only to the original complainant i.e. Anil Kumar and Mrs. Shanta Kumar but has also paid an equal amount to the bank also, hence, the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted any further in the present case.

Mr. Parveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that not only has the petitioner paid the entire amount to the original complainant as well as to the bank but he is also ready and willing to pay the interest as accrued on the entire amount at the prevalent bank rate.

Respondent No.3-Anil Kumar who is the original complainant has also written to the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Hoshiarpur, stating that as he and respondent No.4 have received the amount of Rs.5,67,600/-, therefore, they do not wish to take any action against the petitioner.

Counsel for the Bank admits that they have received an amount of Rs.5,67,600/- from the petitioner and states that in case the interest is also paid by him then they have no objection if the FIR in the present case is quashed.

In view of the fact that the entire amount has already been paid to the Bank and that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the interest also within three months from today, therefore, I quash FIR No. 175 dated 29.7.2002 under Sections 420/120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Hoshiarpur. All proceedings initiated in pursuance to the aforesaid FIR are also quashed. On receipt of the amount of interest the bank shall release the accounts of the petitioner.

8.3.2006 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA )

Rupi JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.