In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-30590 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:8.12.2010 Sant Lal .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.40 dated 21.8.2003 (Annexure-P.1) registered at State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak for the offences under Sections 402, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code. The quashing of the FIR is sought qua the pensionary benefits to which the petitioner, it is submitted, is entitled as held by this Court in Bhag Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 (3) RCR (Criminal) 444 (P&H). The FIR (Annexure-P.1) has been registered on the allegations that three bogus teachers were appointed against the post of JBT Teachers even though they had higher qualifications. The petitioner was Assistant Director at that time and it is alleged that he in conspiracy with others had sanctioned the appointments and issued the letters. The allegations in the present case relate to the appointment of three bogus teachers during the period 15.12.1999 to 18.1.2000. The FIR (Annexure-P.1) was registered on Cr. Misc. No.M-30590 of 2010 [2] 21.8.2003. The petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2006. Thereafter, challan (Annexure-P.7) was filed on 18.11.2009. The grievance of the petitioner primarily is that he has retired from service on 30.6.2006 and, therefore, his pension is not liable to be withheld in view of the provisions of Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II (as applicable in the State of Haryana). In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cites Bhag Singh v. State of Punjab (supra). During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of aforesaid Rule 2.2 (b), the criminal prosecution cannot be stalled as held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, AIR 1989 SC 558. He, however, submits that the FIR is liable to be quashed as it denies him the pensionary and other retiral benefits. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the challan (Annexure-P.7) has been filed in the case on 18.11.2009. The trial in the case is going on. Ordinarily the criminal proceedings which are instituted against an accused are to be tried and taken to their logical conclusion and this Court would be reluctant to interfere in the same at an interlocutory stage in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Therefore, the FIR is not liable to be quashed on the ground that the pendency of the same deprives the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner may, however, seek his remedy for enforcing his statutory rights, if any, in accordance with law but the petition for quashing of the FIR would not be maintainable. Cr. Misc. No.M-30590 of 2010 [3] Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. The petitioner may, however, avail his remedy in accordance with law seeking enforcement of his statutory rights, if any. December 8, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*