IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2494 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 20, 2011 Sonia @ Sukhwinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Counsel has made reference to the earlier petitions filed by her where the police was intending to file cancellation report. The petition for quashing filed by the petitioner was disposed of accordingly. Subsequently, challan has been presented and now charge has been framed. If at a particular stage, some cancellation report was prepared, which subsequently is not either filed or not accepted and a charge is now framed, it would not be a valid ground to interfere in the order framing the charge. The submission that there is no material to frame the charge and that the petitioner was staying separately ultimately now has to be established before the trial Court. That would not be a valid ground to interfere in the order framing the charge. At this stage, the Court has to see whether prima-facie case is made out for framing a charge or not. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out. Dismissed. However, the petitioner may file an application before the trial Court seeking exemption from personal appearance, which shall be considered in accordance with law. December 20, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE