Crl. Misc. No.M-10862 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-10862 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 19, 2010 Umed Singh and another …..Petitioners Vs. Sharmila Devi …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioners seek the quashing of criminal compliant summoning them under Sections 307, 406, 498 A 506/34, 120-B IPC. Counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of similar allegations levelled by the respondent against the petitioners, an FIR was registered. In the said FIR, the police on investigation has found the petitioners, not involved in the case. The police case is already pending in the Court. The launching of prosecution by way of private compliant is an Crl. Misc. No.M-10862 of 2010 [2] abuse of the process of the Court. The allegation against the petitioners is that they alongwith their son and daughter had got some poison administered to the respondent and that she was admitted in the hospital in February 2007. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there are vague allegations against the petitioners. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and gone through all the facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be said that after the State prosecution agency opts to drop the proceedings qua few of the accused, the complainant cannot file a separate compliant. It will be premature to express any opinion and appreciate the argument of the counsel for the petitioners. Petition is dismissed. However, in view of the fact that the petitioners have not been challaned on the basis of similar allegations, the only relief which can be granted to the petitioner is that in case they move an application for exemption from personal appearance, the trial Court will consider the said application and allow the same subject to any conditions imposed upon them to put in appearance at proper occasions. It will be open to the trial Court to record the evidence in presence of counsel for the petitioners as per provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C. read with Section 205 Cr.P.C. July 19, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE