CRM No. M 1942 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 1942 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.01.2010 Joshila Devi and others ........ petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. S N Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners -.- 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) It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that complainant-Brahmo Devi made a false complaint against the petitioners. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 748 dated 22.11.2006 for offence under Sections 406, 420, 452, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station City Ballabhagarh against petitioner No. 2. After a lapse of five days, another FIR No. 761 dated 27.11.2006 for offence under Sections 420, 448, 147, 149, 506 and 323 of Indian Penal code was also registered on the statement of Brahmo Devi against all the petitioners. It is further stated that two more FIRs, i.e. FIR No. 59 of 2007 under Section 452, 294, 323, 325, 506 of IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and FIR No.76 of 2007 under Sections 341/506 of IPC were registered against the petitioners. After holding an inquiry, FIR No. 59 of 2007 was cancelled. CRM No. M 1942 of 2010 2 It is also submitted that on 07.03.2008, the Senior Superintendent of Police submitted his report to Lokayukta and after enquiry from the DSP, the cases were ordered to be reinvestigated. On the basis of the re-investigation, the Superintendent of Police rather asked for sanction against the guilty police officials and initiate a regular departmental enquiry against them. FIR No. 422 dated 14.07.2009 under Sections 217, 221, 225-A, 342, 452, 120-B of IPC was also registered against the erring police officials along with the complainant. It is further stated that on the basis of the reinvestigation, all the offences were deleted in FIR No. 748 dated 22.11.2006 and FIR 761 dated 27.11.2006 except Section 323, 506 of IPC. Accordingly, challan has been presented against the petitioner only under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC. No charge has been framed as yet. In view of the fact that no charge has been framed as yet, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the pleas raised herein before the trial Court at the time of framing of the charge(s). Meanwhile, the personal appearance of petitioners No. 1, 3 and 4 shall remain exempted till such time, their presence is specifically required by the trial Court. Nothing said herein will have any bearing on the merit of the case Disposed of accordingly. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge January 27, 2010 mohan