1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 21907-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.8.2009 *** Gurcharan Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. H.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.8 dated 20.1.2004, registered under Sections 498-A, 306, 511 IPC at Police Station Shimlapuri, District Ludhiana. Petitioner is husband of respondent No.4 while the impugned FIR has been got registered by respondent No.3, the brother of respondent No.4. At the very threshold it has been revealed that after the investigation, final report in the matter was filed, which underwent the judicial scrutiny with the framing of charges against the petitioner under relevant provisions of law and trial thereon. In the case of Manjula Sinha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 778, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in clear words have observed that no question of quashing arises once the charges are framed. Even otherwise the grounds on which quashing has been sought viz. the respondent No.4 wants to falsely implicate the petitioner and his family in a false case as she earlier also filed a criminal complaint, which lateron was dismissed in default; the complainant has made exaggerations in his statement given before the Court at the time of trial; the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 511 IPC are not made out against the petitioner and that the private respondents are resorting to 2 delay tactics for prolonging the pending trial, cannot be adjudicated upon in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, that too in rarest of rare cases, which does not exist in the present case. The trial of the petitioner is going on before the Court below and he can very well agitate these points before the trial court at an appropriate stage. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 11,2009 Jiten