Kuldeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:27.01.2022 Kuldeep Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ......... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

Present:

Mr. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.


 




   

  ***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) ase heard via     On 01.11.2021 the following order had been passed by this court:- " !    "#!   !!  !! $ % !$ 

&'()*+, !   
 -   .! / ),),0)0*   !! 

 !

!  !!

 !10)2*0)%" '

 3 !   !   -! -  !

!  &'( 4  #0)0) ! # (! 5 *, )))2%!     ! 

-2- -# 6 7  -!#-#    6-. 0)*87  !

!9 #!

 !  # -. 0)*80)*,

 

  

  !$ 4

 ! #  !

!! :! :

 %+-  4-      !        !      &'(  !  

!# 

01)*0)0)!  !-  #    !

 # ! ! #  &'(!  ! !! !

-

       !

  !             .  !  !     ! ; &'( 4 !   ! !

0  - (!#   #  !!#    !

! 

!  # &'(6 # :



%*7    <!   
(4!  .  

 

 !   !

%

 #   !#

!  #! 

 *=*00)0* (!

0!#-#   !!# :  ;

      .! / !

      #     -  !# !   !!

!

 

-3- '   - 

       ! --  !!! ! -  ! !

!9 !

#! !!

 !

2'9
! 4!! #- !!

  1+,607     '

   !  

  !           ! - 

 '9
! # -- !

!

  ! !  ! > Pursuant thereto, an affidavit dated 13.12.2021 has been filed by the SSP, Khanna, which is ordered to be taken on record. As per the said affidavit, it was found that an amount of Rs.9,94,000/- was transferred by the complainant from his bank account to that of the petitioner, in December 2017; and thereafter another amount of Rs.3,17,000/- was transferred in November 2018, after which the complainant was found to have (as per the investigation) also given amounts of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,59,000/- to the petitioner, though he could not produce receipts thereof.

It has next been stated that as regards the contention of the petitioner that the amounts were returned to him on account of some loan given by him to the complainant, no such documentation was produced by the petitioner, though he is stated to have joined investigation pursuant to the last order passed.

-4document showing that there was any loan given by him to the petitioner, I see no ground to entertain this petition, which is consequently dismissed and the interim order vacated.

It is made clear however that all observations made in this petition are in the context of such petition only, filed under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

January 27, 2022 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No