Criminal Revision No.643 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.643 of 2007 Date of Order: 10.02.2009 Mangal Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Addl. A.G.,Punjab for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). Challenge in this revision petition is to an order dated 06.12.2006, whereby the trial court has framed charges under Sections 406, 379, 498-A, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the petitioners gives up challenge to the impugned order on behalf of petitioners No.1 to 3. Counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners No.4 to 5 are the elder brother and his wife, who reside separately from the main accused and, therefore, the allegations levelled against them are patently false and frivolous. It is submitted that despite the absence of any material against the petitioners, they have been arraigned as accused and charges have been framed. Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners' assertion that they reside separately are incorrect and as specific allegations have been levelled against them, the present petition be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the relevant Criminal Revision No.643 of 2007 -2- documents as also the order framing charges. While considering the final report for the purpose of framing a charge, a trial court appraises the material on record for the limited purpose of determining whether there is sufficient material to proceed against an accused. A perusal of the final report, leaves no manner of doubt as to the sufficiency of the material on record, to frame charges against petitioners No.4 and 5. The argument that as the petitioners reside separately from the complainant's husband, they could not have committed offences of misappropriation of istridhan or committed acts of cruelty, relate to their defence and must, therefore, be raised before the trial court, to be considered, by the trial court, at an appropriate stage. It would require reference that during the pendency of this petition the trial court has already examined two prosecution witnesses. Faced with the imminent dismissal of the revision petition, counsel for the petitioners prays that as petitioners No.4 and 5 reside separately and petitioner No.5 is a lady, their personal appearance before the trial court may be exempted. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the present petition is dismissed. The personal appearance of petitioners No.4 and 5 before the trial court is exempted subject to their filing an affidavit/undertaking to appear before the trial court as and when so directed. February 10, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) sk/nt JUDGE