IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No. M- 34583 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.11.2011 ... Pankaj Bansal and another ................Petitioners vs. State of Haryana .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Ms. Aarti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners ... K.C. Puri, J. The main grievance of the petitioners is that offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioners that at the asking of the same complainant, charge under Section 63, 65 of the Copy Right Act has been framed in five cases, as detailed in the petition and no charge under Section 420 IPC has been framed. Charge is yet to be framed by the trial Court. The petitioners may approach the trial Court and raise all these points at the time of framing of charge. In case any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, then they would have remedy to challenge that order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( K.C. Puri ) 16.11.2011 Judge chugh