CRM No. M 1442 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 1442 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.02.2010 State of Punjab ........ Petitioner Versus Lal Singh .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the petitioner -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure of Code for quashing of the order dated 25.03.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in FIR No. 55 dated 30.04.2003 under Sections 354/452/356/365/511/506 of Indian Penal Code, P S Payal, Ludhiana. The prosecution filed an application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal from the case. However, the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 25.08.2006. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed by the state. The same was dismissed on merits by observing as under:- “12. Even on merits of the case, there is no illegality CRM No. M 1442 of 2010 2 or impropriety in findings returned by the learned Trial Court. The case in hand was thoroughly investigated before submissions of the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.. The argument of the State that brother of the complainant Sital Singh did not support the prosecution case is devoid of any merit because the process of justice can not scuttled merely on such ground that the witness is liable to turn hostile. The version of the prosecution can not be believed at this stage and is rather premature because opportunity is yet to be granted to Sital Singh to appear in the witness box and opportunity shall then be granted to the state as well as the Defence counsel to cross examine him. Ld. Counsel for complainant stated that Sital Singh was in fact ready to appear before learned Trial Court and depose in favour of the prosecution case as in criminal Misc. 17955 M of 2005 he had filed an affidavit to the effect that his sister was molested by Lal Singh and that he was eye witness to the incident and that he along with PW Jagtar Singh had rescued her from the hands of accused Lal Singh. In the said affidavit he has further deposed that he did not appear before an inquiry officer or got recorded his statement before any enquiry officer.” CRM No. M 1442 of 2010 3 Even otherwise, the quashing petition filed by the accused has already been dismissed by the High Court by holding as under: “In the present case, evidence had been substantially record. Apart from the fact that no permission was taken from the Court for further investigation, which out to be normally done, the trial court has looked into the supplementary report and found no case for discharge. In these circumstances, refusal of the trial court to discharge the accused, against which trial had substantially advanced, cannot be held to be unjustified or arbitrary, so as to call for interference, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is dismissed. This order will not be treated as expressing final view on merits of the case.” The revision petition has been dismissed. Second revision is not maintainable. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the dismissal of the revision petition was not justified or that the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounted to misuse of process of law. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be resorted to under the circumstances Dismissed as such. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge February 25, 2010 mohan