Amandeep Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Another





  
  

 !"#$!%&'&"()*++
 

 



  

 

 )  ,- + .
.
.


   
   

 .
.

/ + 01

      

 ! 

"#"
"

%   & %

 

'"



( 



%*  +% % ,% - .! 

 

"



( 
$ !/ % *  +% % ,%

&& %   

 !  '
"#"
"



(

/  ! 01 , "2  "

3

 ! 

*

1#
 /!  
 ,. * 4 !  +% % ,%"

($ $!

 !   01 , "2  "

3

 ! 

*

1#
* /!  
 ,. * 4 !  +% % ,%* !& 

( %  %  5/ #.  6& 7

  .$

5/ #. .  //% 

 5/ #. 

 

$$!  #// 

  / ( "

8   &      .

/

/ 

$&/ &/ 


 /!



 

* * 

 !  !$!

. 9 ( 5/ #. .

$ & 

  !

&/   .

/ 9



:





% &  ! ; "

- 

&*  / %. 

.$

 

./ &



*2 *

<

 $$ 

 !-   (   

( &  ! ; & 
"

  = 

 

 * != .

( 5/ #.

 " /!

 '

"

"

1 .

/

 &   &% &



 "'*2 *

< .

/ ( $   ! "

!

& & .

- "

.-*  (9 & .

    != .

 

"

!  &



 "'*2 *

< .

/

  %- 

&

!

&/"

  /

(

&"

! %* 

! .

%- 

    (  

& .

 

"

+

  $ &  //%  *  01 .

%  

 

 %  *  - %  .

!

 !  .!    .

>   

 !  3'

"#"
"

.

(&

/ %  5/ #."

!



 

 !  3'

"#"
"

 "

! .

6>  #"

'"

$*

%  !

/*  /! 

 !  '
"#"
"

.

-



6>  # 

&&    

  / !!

"

 /!  .

// .     .

 

(

&&  ( 

$ !/ %  -

 

"

!









!

6>  #"

$ & 

 .

!//%   -    .

&

( 



%*  +% % ,% - & %

 

'"

$*      

( $/"

"

%  !

 %*  & !

   (    .

   (

%$! & -&  

'

&

 !

&/  .

!

  

$ 

&

!



%  !

 - % "

$ * -

  "

*  / !

 /    .

! 

/!

 !

 

 

#?<4/@ %*#? <7  #? '<A & %

!

&/  

& - ( /!

 !

6> 

#3* #  # -
' 33 

2"

& 

!

&

%  "

"

/ !

 /    !



 

/

 01 .

/ -/    

!$!

//% 

%    "

1 $!* $ / - % *    .

> "

( = /*

%  !

 /* 

&

 

!

  .

. !

.  -

%$!/ & -  - 

 !



  & - -  !  ( /

9  

&& %

   .

. /"

* 

* !



  & %





'"



( 



%*  +% % ,%  @ %& 

 

"



( 
$ !/ % *  +% % ,%  /(/ 

(

     

% 

( !%"

3"

-   / !

 /   "

+$   !% *  .

/ ( 

 

$ 

  - 

!  '
"#"
"

&  

! (/ .
 

 

       



 

   

 

    

 

  

     

 





 

 

      

 

     

    

 

  




    

          

      

!

 

       

   

     

  

          

  

        





"    

   #

  
     

 

 

          



   

#$
%

    
          

     

& 

'

 

  

 

  

 

 ( B(/

&

1 2(3!! .&(456!0'7'

.  !"#08( " 5!0'/ 0&9&(1 :,/   !



  



     

       

    

 

!  

  "  #  $         

    

    

 $  





""

    

  

$ % &

!      

 

   "  

 '

 (  "%&

! "

   "%   %

"$ "

      

$ 

     " 

"

"%   

    

$  

 

 $ %  $



(  "

&

)!

  $ %  

   

   

   

  $ %     

 $  &

2 )!   )

$ $% %    

%     ""

    



  "  ""

$ 

 

 

"& !

    ""

 

 

 %   

      

!    " 

% '

   %

  

 "  " "

   

""      

 

 %    #        

       "'

%   



  

  " 



$ %%  "

$  )

$ *   

$ $%&

!

      "

$

   $    

(   

     

  $

 %  

 $  

"  $ 

   

"&

#!    

 !     #  

%

$    $  "       '$

#  $ 

$ +

,- *,-.   

  

 "%  

"

$  

   

& #!         #          

    "%   

"    

   $  ) & !       /) /    

      "%)      







     

 "



  &

!

 "%) 

  

( 

  % 0

 

  

       

       

  #     

      

"   ""   $  )

&



!  0

*  ) )    )  

$ # 

  

 #      

  

  

 

    !& )!

0

*  ) )       )   

$    # 

  

   

    #  & #)!

   

     #  )



$  "

 # 



    

 



"" 

)      # 

& #) !)     

$ $ $ 



%

 "

 

 " 

 

 $ $ 



"

 

    ""     123 

"



   $   

  "

 

""

  "%

 

    )      123 

"



   $    

  

  $ 

)   

     %             # 

        



!& #)

!   "  #  $         

     

 4  *

'

   

$ 

*)     



 

   4 

  $ 

"5

10.

Coming back to the facts of the present case, a perusal of the complaint (Annexure P-2) which led to the registration of the FIR would show that the petitioner accompanied her husband and main accused Lalit Pawar on different dates when the amount was paid by the complainantGurmit Singh to Lalit Pawar. It has been specifically mentioned in the complaint/FIR that a cheque of Rs.19 lacs was issued and a compromise was

3 arrived at the instance of both the accused, though, a cheque has been admittedly signed by one of the accused. The petitioner also abused the complainant which also shows prima facie culpability. The depositions of PWs No.1 to 3, namely, Daljit Kaur, Kiran and Gurmit Singh, are categoric as to the role played by the petitioner. In fact, she has held out to the complainant that she was working as a travel agent with her husband-Lalit Pawar. Merely, because no payment had been made in the account of the petitioner or that the cheque was not signed by her, did not, in any manner, detract her from her prima facie culpability at this stage. 11.

Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it can be clearly opined at least at this stage that there were reasonable prospects of the conviction of the petitioner in view of the evidence on record, for which she ought to be tried as an additional accused alongwith her husband-Lalit Pawar.

12.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same is dismissed.

.
.


  !%!9;!0*/ "  # "$  %& #    %&