IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-17851 of 2010 Date of decision : 29.6.2010 Surinder … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SARON Present: Mr.D.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. S.S.Saron, J. The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the FIR registered against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 377, 376 (g), 342, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code along with all consequential proceedings arising out of the same. Respondent No.2-prosecutrix got registered the FIR (Annexure P-1) at Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon on 15.11.2009 alleging commission of rape on her on 14.11.2009. In the said FIR, she named petitioner as the accused who raped her forcibly against her wishes. Besides, two persons who she came to know later on as Sham Kumar and Kamal Dev Parshad were standing outside the room and keeping guard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecutrix -respondent No.2 on 17.11.2009 deposed an affidavit (Annexure P-2) to the effect that she had come to know that police had arrayed the petitioner in the FIR whereas he has not done any wrongful act with her nor was he present at the spot. A reference is also made to the affidavit dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure P-3) of the eye witness namely Jaseem, in which he has stated that he had not got recorded any statement with the police that Crl.Misc.No.M-17851 of 2010 petitioner was present at the spot at the time of occurrence or had teased them. It is submitted that the prosecutrix-respondent No.2 also submitted an application dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure P-4) before the Ilaqa Magistrate, Gurgaon for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The said application was supported by an affidavit (Annexure P-5) of the prosecutrix. It is therefore, submitted that FIR against the petitioner is liable to be quashed as the entire process for conducting trial against the petitioner would be abuse of process of law. The petitioner should be spared of the agony of trial. Besides, it is submitted that this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction can quash the FIR where the prosecutrix is not likely to support the case. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. During the course of hearing, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that challan against two persons in this case has been filed and non-bailable warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioner. It is well known that ordinarily criminal proceedings which have been initiated against an accused should be taken to its logical conclusion. This Court would be reluctant to interfere with the proceedings at an interlocutory stage. In case, the prosecutrix resiles from her statement, on the basis of which FIR (Annexure P-1) has been registered, then it is open to the public prosecutor to get her declared hostile and cross examine her as also confront her with her previous statement. This exercise is to be carried out by the learned trial court and this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is not to conduct a parallel trial which is the domain of the trial Court. Therefore, in case, the prosecutrix has filed an application (Annexure P-2) and the eye witness has deposed an affidavit (Annexure P-3) in which they have resiled from their previous stand or statements made before the police, then it is open to the 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-17851 of 2010 public prosecutor to get them declared hostile and cross examine them to prove its case. This process is not liable to be short-circuited by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In case the non- bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioner, the petitioner has other remedies available in accordance with law. However, the petition for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the prosecutrix and eye witness have resiled from their previous stand/ statement made before the police is not to be resorted to. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( S.S.Saron ) Judge 29.06.2010 sd 3