IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-12453 of 2008 Date of decision: 10th May, 2010 Sukhdev and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. None for respondent No.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that case FIR No.350 dated 16.12.2001 registered at Police Station Sadar Nabha under Sections 323, 341, 506, 427, 447, 511, 382, 379, 452, 148, 149 IPC be quashed, as the investigating agency had submitted a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. only for offences punishable under Section 323, 506 and 341 IPC after a delay of six years and hence, the trial Court cannot take cognizance of the fact as the same will be barred under Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. On an observation made by this Court that in case while framing charge the trial Court comes to a conclusion that offence under Section 382, 379 and 452 is also made out against the petitioners and in that case argument that, Court can take cognizance on the ground that same is time barred, will not be available to the petitioners, learned Criminal Misc. No.M-12453 of 2008 counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty that in case the trial Court comes to the conclusion that offence is only made out under Section 323, 506 and 341 IPC then his prayer that proceedings against the petitioners cannot commence because of limitation, shall be considered by the trial Court. I find merit in this contention of the counsel for the petitioners. Hence, as prayed, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, however, it is ordered that at the time of framing of charge, the trial Court shall consider as to what offence is made out and if the Court comes to a conclusion that offences for which the petitioners are to be charged are subject to limitation then the prayer of the petitioners for discharge shall be considered in accordance with provisions of law. Furthermore, taking into consideration that occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 2001 and the litigation is old, personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court is exempted, subject to their filing an undertaking that they shall cause their appearance as and when required by the trial Court. They shall also undertake that the evidence, if any, recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel, shall be binding upon them. The trial Court may incorporate any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the accused. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 10, 2010 rps 2