In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-19260 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:8.7.2010 Waryam Singh and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. A.P.S. Shergill, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.16 dated 26.3.2009 registered for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 323, 382, 427, 120-B, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have not been named as accused in the FIR which has been registered on the statement of Kuljit Singh on 26.3.2009 with respect to the incident that occurred on 25.3.2009. However, the statement of Narinder Singh son of Piara Singh was recorded on 27.3.2009 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. According to Narinder Singh on the day earlier to the incident, that is, on 24.3.2009 he had gone to Fatehgarh Churian for his personal work. He was taking tea near the bus stand. At that time Baljit Singh, Waryam Singh (petitioner No.1), Satnam Singh, Shamsher Singh (petitioner No.2) and others were also present at the shop and having tea. Satnam Singh was Cr. Misc. No.M-19260 of 2010 [2] informing all of them that he had come after enquiring about the health of Manjeet Singh and Ravinder Singh from Hartej Hospital, Amritsar. The doctors had informed that their condition was serious and nothing could be said about their survival. On 26.3.2009, Satnam Singh in connivance with others had killed Avtar Singh by firing in the Civil Hospital at Fatehgarh Churian; besides, had injured others by inflicting injuries with sharp edged weapons. Narinder Singh was making his statement on humanitarian ground. The matter was inquired into by the Special Investigating Team which comprised of Manmohan Singh, PPS, SP (Local), Amritsar (Rural), Narinderpal Singh, PPS, DSP (Detective), Batala and Suraj Kumar, CIA Staff, Amritsar (Rural). In terms of the report dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure- P.3), the Special Investigating Team held that except for Satnam Singh alias Sattu as mentioned in the statement of Narinder Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. others including the petitioners were not involved in the incident that occurred on 25.3.2009 at Civil Hospital Fatehgarh Churian. Besides, except Satnam Singh alias Sattu others had not caused any injury. The petitioners Waryam Singh and Shamsher Singh, it was observed, were arrayed as accused only on the allegations of conspiracy and they were innocent. Therefore, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR against them is liable to be quashed. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter I find no ground for quashing FIR against the petitioners on the basis of the report of the Special Investigating Team. The question that bail was granted by this Court to Waryam Singh vide order dated 28.5.2010 is inconsequential as Cr. Misc. No.M-19260 of 2010 [3] considerations for grant of bail and for trial of a case are entirely different. The charge report has been filed by the Police and it is for the trial Court to go into the question as to whether charges are liable to be framed against the petitioners or not on the basis of the material on record. The mere fact that the report of the Special Investigation Team has found the petitioners to be not involved in the incident that occurred on 25.3.2009 at Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Churian is by itself no ground to quash the FIR. The petitioners may raise their contentions with regard to framing of charges before the learned trial Court itself. It is well known that the trial Court at the time of consideration of framing charges does not act as a mere post-office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution and it can sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purposes of framing charge. In the circumstances, the petitioners may pursue their remedy before the learned trial Court itself. However, no ground for quashing the impugned FIR is made out. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Any observation made herein shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider the evidence and material as is available before it uninfluenced by any observations made herein. July 8, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*