CRM No. M 12044 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 12044 of 2009 Date of decision: 06.12.2010 Dinesh Garg and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Ranjan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. P S Paul, DAG, Punjab for the respondent- State Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 605 dated 12.08.2008 (Annexure P1) under Section 452, 323, 148, 149 IPC, PS Kotwali Bathinda which was got registered by respondent No. 2. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the inquiry report conducted by the Superintendent of Police (City), the petitioners had not entered the said premises. It is CRM No. M 12044 of 2009 2 further stated that an affidavit has also been submitted by Anil Kumar stating therein that they have not entered into the house of the complainant. The above facts are disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State in as much as after due investigation the challan has been filed against the present petitioners. In pursuance to the same, even charges have been framed against the petitioners. Now, the trial is in progress and the prosecution evidence is being recorded. Whether the petitioners entered the said premises or not is a question of evidence. Charges have already been framed. Thus, the said fact can only be ascertained at the time of trial. No other argument is raised. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. A Ravishankar Prasad and others reported as 2009(3) CRC (Criminal) in para 21 held as under:- “21. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court in its exercise. The court must be careful to ensure that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy.” While applying the said proposition in the present case, the inherent powers of this Court under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised to quash the present FIR in the facts of the present case. CRM No. M 12044 of 2009 3 Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 06.12.2010 mohan