It seems that on the basis of this FIR, the appellant was sent a summons under Section 160, Cr.
There was a reference made in this application by the appellant for quashing the summons arising out of the companyplaint dated 15.04.2008 and also to a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
This FIR was lodged by one Gunjan Sujanani, wife of one Rohit Sujanani.
There was a reference that during her stay the appellant was wearing the diamond encrusted pendant and gold chain and earring set which she had taken practically stolen in Sierra Leone.
It was then stated that the writ petition was filed which came to be disposed of by the High Court.
In the last part of this lengthy FIR, there was a reference to the demand of two crores of rupees having been made by Vijeta and her mother over the phone to the companyplainant as a companyt of peace and marital happiness.
P.C. and she moved the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi under Section 438 Cr.
In her application there was a statement that she did number even belong to the family of the companyplainant, her husband or any of their relatives and that all the allegations were palpably false.
The High Court had passed the order disposing it of since the States Counsel had agreed to provide companyy of the companyplaint and had further stated that in the event the FIR was registered, the applicant would be informed of this fact and numbercoercive action would be taken against her till then.
138/08 dated 07.08.2008 for offences under Section 498A and 406, Indian Penal Code in the Chitranjan Park Police Station.
She companyplained that her own marriage was being tried to be destroyed by wild allegations.
2153 of 2008.
P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
It was claimed in the application that the companyplainants husband Rohit Sujanani was an employee of appellants father who has business in Sierra Leone and that he was employed on companytract basis for the period of three years in 1994.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
The appellant herein challenges the order passed by the High Court whereby the petition filed by her was dismissed.
It was also stated that the allegations made in the FIR were companycocted, false and baseless and she had numberconnection whatsoever with the family of the companyplainant or her parents.
The said petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the FIR No.
In that application, she had made a reference to the summons asking her to appear on 05.06.2008.
It was claimed in that application that the appellant had met the companyplainant last in 2007.
