Crl.Misc.No.M-6831 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-6831 of 2008 Date of Decision: 9 - 3 - 2009 Gurmail Singh etc. .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Amrik Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.257 dated 1.8.2007 registered at Police Station Kharar under Sections 420, 465, 468, 461, 471 and 120-B IPC. The impugned FIR has been lodged at the instance of Naib Singh against his father Amar Singh petitioner No.2, brother Gurmail Singh petitioner No.1 and Surinder Kaur petitioner No.3, wife of Gurmail Singh petitioner No.1. Amar Singh petitioner-accused had two sons, namely, Gurmail Singh and Naib Singh. Naib Singh complainant was having no male child. Crl.Misc.No.M-6831 of 2008 [2] His brother Gurmail Singh and his wife Surinder Kaur both accused- petitioners were having five children. It was stated that their son Jatinder Singh was given in adoption to Naib Singh. However, grievance of complainant Naib Singh is that a wrong birth certificate was got issued and wrongly name of the parents of Jatinder Singh was given Naib Singh as father and Charanjit Kaur as mother. According to the complainant - real parents of child were his brother Gurmail Singh and his wife Surinder Kaur. Complainant has implicated his brother, his wife and his father Amar Singh as accused for issuance of a wrong birth certificate. Petitioners rely upon birth certificate annexed as Annexure P-2 to say that it was a genuine certificate issued and was in accordance with the birth. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that there is no document to show that wrong birth certificate was obtained at their instance. Counsel further submit that a wrong certificate was obtained by the complainant-respondent No.2. It has been further urged that all the property belong to Amar Singh. He has not given any property to any one. It is, therefore, urged that since no property was given to any body, the grievance of complainant on this score is not substantiated. Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Ram Kishan has stated that during the pendency of the present petition, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted. Petitioners have been charged for the offences. The trial is in progress. It is well settled law that when the trial is in progress, this Court cannot interfere. When the trial is in progress, it has to culminate into conviction or acquittal. It is stated that petitioner No.2 - Amar Singh is father of the complainant and is an old man and petitioner No.3- Surinder Kaur is a lady, Crl.Misc.No.M-6831 of 2008 [3] therefore, their personal appearance may be exempted. Taking into consideration, the relationship and old age of petitioner No.2, personal appearance of petitioners No.2 ands 3 is exempted subject to furnishing an undertaking that they shall cause appearance as and when required by the trial Court. They shall also file an undertaking that the evidence, if any, recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel shall be binding upon them. The trial Court may also incorporate any other condition in the undertaking to be submitted by the accused. The petition is disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 9, 2008. JUDGE RC