CRM No. M 10046 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 10046 of 2009 Date of decision: 10.03.2010 Balwinder Kaur and another ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Tarsem Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. Parminder Singh-I Advocate for the complainant -.- 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 for quashing of FIR No. 22 dated 10.01.2009 under Sections 456, 380, 34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is no eye witness hence there is no evidence against the petitioners. Accordingly, FIR in question should be quashed in view of the judgement rendered by the CRM No. M 10046 of 2009 2 Apex Court in the case of Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and others reported as 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 373 wherein it is held as under:- 25. In Muniswamy (supra) the learned Sessions Judge refused to discharge the accused therein and proceeded for framing specific charges as made out from the material on record against the accused persons. The High Court of Karnataka in the exercise of its inherent power quashed the proceedings initiated by the State of Karnataka and accordingly discharged the accused. The High Court as well as this Court found that there was no material on the record on which any court could reasonably convict the accused for any offence. It is under those circumstances this Court came to the conclusion that it would be a sheer waste of public time and money to permit the proceedings to continue against the accused. In that regard this Court observed: “The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.” Reply has been filed by the State on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Reply has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. It is further stated that there is enough evidence against the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab on instructions from ASI Ranjit Singh states that in pursuance to the investigation, challan has been filed and the charge has also been framed. It was on account of sufficient evidence that charges have been framed against the petitioners. CRM No. M 10046 of 2009 3 The order vide which the charges were framed has not been challenged before this Court. Thus, it is not possible for this Court to come to the conclusion that the charge has been filed without any evidence or that there was no evidence at the time of filing of the challan. Accordingly, the judgement relied on by the learned counsel will not come to the help of the petitioner Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the please before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge March 10, 2010 mohan