Crl. Misc. No. 12126 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 12126 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 14,2011 Kewal Gir .................................................................... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........................................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raghubir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.3. ... RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing FIR No. 33 dated 12.2.2006 under Sections 406, 420 IPC registered in Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga (Annexure P-1), Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 27.3.2006 (Annexure P-2) and charge-sheet dated 1.5.2006 (Annexure P-3). Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2002 the respondent, a NRI, had come to India and alleged that `8 lacs were taken by the petitioner on interest. Gradually, the petitioner stopped taking to the respondent. When there was no scope of getting the money back from the Crl. Misc. No. 12126 of 2009 [ 2 ] petitioner, the respondent approached the DIG who conducted inquiry and a FIR was registered against the petitioner. In his statement, the petitioner stated that respondent Anokh Singh had borrowed Rs.2 lacs from him on the pretext of taking him abroad. The petitioner was treating the respondent and his wife for some ailment on payment of fee. He alleged that respondent had never lend money to him nor he had sought any help for opening an account in the bank. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, counsel for the petitioner, has argued that this FIR suffers from delay as it has been registered in the year 2006 whereas the alleged deposit of Rs.8 lacs was in the year 2002. Learned counsel for respondent No.3- Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu informed the Court that in pursuance of the FIR, charge had been framed in the trial Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Applying the ratio of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others AIR 1992 SC 604 and Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 574, this is not a case where any interference of this Court is called for at this stage. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and in view of the fact that charge has been framed by the trial Court, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take all the pleas as have been raised in this petition before the trial Court. The trial Court is not to be influenced by any observation made on the merits of the case. 14.1.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE