Dismissed

Hanney @ Honey v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Dec 2012CRM-M/40055/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Singlejudge bench dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case alleging cheating through a fraudulent education consultancy. The court rejected the claim of non-involvement by the accused partner and refused extraordinary relief due to the specific mention of the petitioner in the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Application for grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed being devoid of merit.

Hanney @ Honey Vs State of Punjab — Consumer Protection | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl.M.No.M-40055 of 2012(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-40055 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: December 18 , 2012

Hanney @ Honey

.....Petitioner

State of Punjab

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

......

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

Crl.M.No.76077 of 2012

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-40055 of 2012

¶16

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.207, dated 22.11.2012, under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, and under Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which application filed on behalf of the petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

¶18

Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that she is admittedly one of the partners of H.R.Education Service Adampur (for short the Institute'). An advertisement was given in the newspaper that the said Institute was engaged in the business of sending interested persons to Dubai. Pursuant to the said advertisement many persons approached the said Institute. About 40-42 persons approached them and a sum of 75-80 thousand was taken from each one of them alongwith the passport. They were also medically examined. They went to Delhi and however, one of the co-accused Prabhjot Kaur informed them that visas and the tickets were

¶19

-2-

¶20

Crl.M.No.M-40055 of 2012(O&M)

¶21

forged and hence they returned. They tried to contact the said Institute again but the same was found closed. All other travel agents ran away except two ladies including the present petitioner. They tried to contact them as well, however, their telephones were found disconnected.

¶22

It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that though she is one of the partners of the Institute and, however, she is not involved in this act of cheating and rather act of cheating was done by co-accused, who had started doing this work in same portion of the building and started misusing the name of the Institute of the petitioner.

¶23

Be that as it may, the name of petitioner has been specifically mentioned in the FIR. She is one of the partners of the Institute. As many as 21 persons had moved applications against accused persons including the present petitioner. It came during enquiry that many other persons have also been cheated. FIR was lodged by the police after due enquiry.

¶24

Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioneraccused.

¶25

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Hanney @ Honey for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶26

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶27

18.12.2012

¶28

meenu

Hanney @ Honey v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanney @ Honey v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hry. Financial Corporation, Chd. Vs M/S R.P. Spintex Ltd, Sirsa & Anr.

M/S Bilag Industries Private Limited Vs M/S Modern Insecticides Limited

Chandan Dabra and Anr. Vs Dabra Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Muktsar

Jagdish Vs State of Haryana

M/S Uni-Com India Sales Private Limited Vs M/S Uni-Com India Private Ltd.

Dhirinder Chopra Vs State of Haryana and Ors.