IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3399 of 2010 Date of decision : 08.12.2010 Sukhdev Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Gulzar Mohd. Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent has stated that since the charges have already been framed against the petitioner-accused, vide order dated 12.03.2010, by the trial Court, so, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR, is not maintainable, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Sharma 1994(3) RCR Criminal 123. 2. Faced with the situation, learned counsel intends to withdraw the present petition to enable the petitioner to file revision petition to challenge the order of framing of charges, before the Sessions Judge, along with an application of condonation of delay or at any subsequent stage in the trial Court. 3. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. 4. Needless to say that the concerned Court would consider the application for condonation of delay sympathetically. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) December 08, 2010 Judge naresh.k