Crl. Misc. No.M-19429 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-19429 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 12, 2010 Chanderpal and others …..Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Robin Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for seeking quashing of criminal complaint and summoning order annexures P-1 and P-2, inter-alia on the ground that respondent No.2 was married to Sushil Kumar, has not made any specific allegation warranting summoning of the petitioners as accused under Section 498 A IPC. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and gone through the contents of the complaint annexure P-1 which does not specify any day, date and time when all the accused named in the compliant had demanded dowry or given her beating. In view of specific allegations having not been Crl. Misc. No.M-19429 of 2010 [2] levelled, it is claimed that it is an abuse of the process of the Court as the petitioners have been appearing before the Court and notice of accusation till date having not been served. I have heard counsel for the petitioners, gone through the averments of the petition and contents of the complaint but I am of the opinion that the legality and propriety of the summoning order can be better appreciated in case the petitioners availed the alternative remedy of filing a revision petition against the summoning order. The revisional Court could have looked into the preliminary evidence to determine whether the circumstances warranted the summoning of all the petitioners as accused. Even otherwise, the petitioners can be discharged by the trial Court after the conclusion of the pre-charge evidence. I appreciate the argument of counsel for the petitioners that by prolonging the period of pre-charge evidence by the Court, unnecessary harassment is being caused to the petitioners. This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy of filing a revision petition or in the alternative to raise all the pleas taken up in this petition at the time of notice of accusation. It is directed that the trial Court will expeditiously decide whether notice of accusation/ charges are to be served upon the petitioners, within a period of three months after the receipt of a certified copy of this order or from the date of hearing fixed before the trial Court whichever is later. July 12, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE Crl. Misc. No.M-19429 of 2010 [3]