IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.22734-M of 2010 Date of Decision:25.1.2011 Sanjay Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 for (a) quashing of FIR No.6 dated 5.1.2010 under Sections 406/420 IPC at Police Station City Khanna, District Ludhiana as well as (b) for issuance of direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to operate his account. With respect to first prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the present petition with liberty to raise all the pleas before the trial Court. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. However, with respect to the second prayer that the petitioner should be allowed to operate his bank account, the report dated 15.4.2010 of the Incharge, CIA Staff Khanna, shows that the Investigating Agency has no objection if the accounts are made operational. SI Mohan Lal, who is present in the Court, states that out of the Crl. M. No.22734-M of 2010 -2- total alleged amount, the amount falling in the share of the petitioner has already been recovered from the petitioner. As such, the investigating agency has no objection, if the petitioner is allowed to operate his bank account. Respondents No.2 and 3 have not filed their separate reply. In fact, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 had stated at the Bar before this Court on 3.12.2010 that he does not wish to file separate reply and adopted the reply filed by the State. In view of this, it is apparent that respondents No.2 and 3 have no objection and their stand is the same as that of the State. Accordingly, the respondent-bank is directed to allow the petitioner to operate his bank account, which was ceased by them Disposed of accordingly. 25.1.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE