Criminal Misc. No. M-25980 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25980 of 2009 Date of decision: September 16, 2009 Vijay Kumar -Petitioner Versus State of Punjab -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. NK Banka, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) This is a petition for quashing FIR No. 79 dated 7-4-2008 under Sections 21/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered against the petitioner at police station Sadar Phagwara, the order framing charge dated 4-2-2009 and the charge-sheet consequent thereto. The FIR was registered when a special informer told the police that Paramjit Singh @ Pamma and Kashmir Singh @ Kashmira were going to Jalandhar in a white colour Indica car to supply huge quantity of heroin to some customer and in case a barricade is laid, the said persons could be arrested with the contraband. Consequently the police organised a naka. A car was later intercepted, which was being driven by Vijay Kumar petitioner while Paramjit Singh and Kashmir Singh were sitting in the same. Recovery of heroin to the tune of 5 Kgs each was allegedly effected from Kashmir Singh and Paramjit Singh. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against all the accused. The petitioner Criminal Misc. No. M-25980 of 2009 2 was charged under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 vide order dated 4-2-2009, Annexure P6. Learned counsel has argued that in the challan submitted by the police, the petitioner was almost absolved of the alleged offence. The trial court, therefore, committed a grave error in framing charge against him. Counsel referring to the order, Annexure P6, passed by the Special Judge submits that without recording its disagreement with the challan submitted by the police, the court proceeded to frame charge against the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Special Judge came to the conclusion that the car in question was being driven by the petitioner. He was having control of the car in which 10 Kgs of heroin was being transported. It is also evident from the order that the prosecution maintained before the Special Judge that Vijay Kumar petitioner was guilty of the alleged offence. In my considered view, the Special Judge rightly framed charge against the petitioner as he was in control of the vehicle being used for transportation of the contraband. Kashmir Singh and Paramjit Singh were apprehended in the same car and recovery of 5 Kgs of heroin was effected from each of them. In the charge sheet, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner knowingly used the vehicle for transportation of the heroin. I find no merit in the contention of learned counsel that the charge could not have been framed against the petitioner. Law is well settled on the point that at the time of framing charge, the court is not required to examine the evidence minutely. On the other hand, in the Criminal Misc. No. M-25980 of 2009 3 instant case there is sufficient material on record for the purpose of framing charge against the petitioner. I thus find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge September 16, 2009. 'ask'