Crl.Misc. No.M-24127 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-24127 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.09.2010 Kavita and others. .. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana. .. Respondent Present:- Mr.Atul Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Vikram Jain, Addl. Advocate General Haryana, for respondent-State. * * * * 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 11.08.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby the petitioners, who failed to appear on the date fixed for tendering evidence have been ordered to be proceeded for having committed an offence punishable under Section 174 of Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, summoned prosecution witnesses for 11.08.2010. The petitioner No.1-Kavita is the complainant, petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law of the complainant and petitioner No.3 is the husband of the complainant. All of them cited as witnesses were summoned for this date. On account of certain personal Crl.Misc. No.M-24127 of 2010 ::2:: difficulty, the said petitioners could not appear on the date fixed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.08.2010 was passed for registration of complaint for an offence under Section 174 of Indian Penal Code against the said petitioners. The said order was challenged before this Court. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued and the order dated 11.08.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, was stayed subject to the appearance of the petitioners before the learned trial Court on the next date of hearing. Today, Mr.Vikram Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, has placed on record a certified copy of the order dated 23.08.2010 from wherein, it is evident that the petitioners have since put in their appearance before the learned trial Court and have even deposed before the trial Court and their examination-in-chief has also been recorded. In view of the above, and in the interest of justice, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding against the petitioners. Accordingly, order dated 11.08.2010 is set aside. However, the petitioners shall appear as and when required by the learned trial Court. This petition is allowed in the above terms. September 13, 2010 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) sukhpreet JUDGE