IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No.22909 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 13, 2011 Raja Ram & others ...Petitioners Versus Joginder Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: None for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Initially, the counsel through whom the present petition was filed expressed his inability to appear in the present case because of certain difficulties and accordingly the case was adjourned to enable the petitioner to make some alternative arrangement. Ultimately, Mr.S.C.Aggarwal Advocate appeared before the Court on 5.12.2011 and on his prayer, the case was adjourned to today for enabling him to prepare arguments. Despite the case being called second time, no one has appeared for the petitioners today. The prayer made in the petition is for quashing of the complaint case, which is pending before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fazilka under Sections 436, 452, 382, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of SC & ST Act. It is stated that the petitioners are victim of repeated litigation. The summoning order in this case was passed on 18.11.2005. The prayer for quashing the summoning order is not made. It is stated that some civil litigation is going on between the parties and some civil suit has also been filed. It is Criminal Misc.-M No.22909 of 2011 (O&M) : 2 : accordingly urged that this complaint is absolutely misuse of process of law and is only based on the bald statement of the complainant. It is stated that the trial Court has not applied its judicial mind to the case and has summoned the petitioners as accused. Apart from the fact that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of revision against the order summoning them, I do not consider this to be a case where interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is called for. All these pleas are on merits of the petition and cannot be gone into in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No case for interference, thus, is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. December 13, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE