Criminal Misc. No.M-8991 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-8991 of 2008 Date of decision : 26.8.2008 Savita Kathuria .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat,Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner faces a charge (in case FIR No. 102 dated 13.3.2008 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station City, Hansi) that she provided forged diplomas to the indicated candidates. The petitioner is otherwise running an institute (IITM, Hansi) which is recognised by SITD, Chandigarh. In the course of the present petition, the petitioner has applied for quashment of the FIR on the allegation that she is a victim of deep-rooted conspiracy at the hands of her estranged husband who had joined hands with her rivals in business. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is being harassed only on account of the differences she has with her estranged husband. In that very context, it is argued Criminal Misc. No.M-8991 of 2008 -2- **** that the concerned candidates had not even appeared at the indicated examination and there was, thus, no question of grant of any diploma to them. In that very context, it is argued that the disgruntled students have opted to harass her. They declined to pay up the fee for the course. In order to buttress his plea for the confirmation of the interim order dated 25.4.2008, learned counsel points out that the petitioner had already joined investigation. Learned State counsel argues that the investigation is yet to make headway because the petitioner did not prove to be cooperative and withheld the relevant computers from the investigating agency. It is the data fed in the computers, learned State counsel argues, which would enable the investigating agency to find out certain facts having relevant bearing on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR. In response to the above indicated grievance at the hands of the learned State counsel, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the computers are still lying at the institute premises and it is the investigating agency only which did not take those into possession. It is neither feasible nor appropriate for this Court to go into the factual dispute about whether the computers were not made available to the investigating agency by the petitioner or the former did not opt to take those computers into possession. Prima-facie, the data available in the computers would be expected to throw some light on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in the Criminal Misc. No.M-8991 of 2008 -3- **** FIR. By the very nature of things, an accused who joins investigation under the protection of the interim anticipatory bail order is not likely to be very cooperative. In any case, that is the precise averment by the Investigating Agency in the matter pending before this Court. In view of the fore-going discussion, I do not find it to be a fit case where interim anticipatory bail sought to be made absolute. The petition shall stand dismissed. August 26, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No