IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-2217 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 25, 2010 Sudhir .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Challenge in this petition is to Order dated 14.1.2010 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner is complainant of FIR No.372 of 2009 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 452, 506, 316 IPC registered with Police Station, Hodel. Learned counsel contends that in regard to the age of the foetus, two different opinions have come on record. Application for re- examination of injured Rajwati at this stage shall not serve any purpose. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. Crl. Misc. No. M-2217 of 2010 [2] The effective part of order dated 14.1.2010 reads as under:- “.......Therefore, the C.M.O. Palwal is directed to constitute a medical board including one Gynecologist at least to re-medically examined Rajwati to give an opinion regarding the cause of her abortion.” Directions make it evident that Rajwati is to be re-medically examined to see the cause of her abortion. In regard to the age of the foetus, opinion has already come. In any case, in my opinion, at this stage, the age of foetus cannot be considered as the incident took place on 10.12.2009. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the order. The petition is disposed of. (AJAI LAMBA) January 25, 2010 JUDGE avin