Crl. Misc. No. M-6763 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-6763 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 03.08.2010 Baldev Raj ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. A.S. Barnala, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Baldev Raj for transferring investigation proceedings in case FIR No. 120 dated 1.12.2009 registered under Section 304-B/34 IPC at Police Station Gidder Baha, District Mukhtsar to some other District or some other independent agency. In this case, notice of motion was issued on 8.3.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in this case death took place due to repeated demand of dowry, which was raised from time to time. The deceased was given physical as well as mental harassment and deceased remained in her matrimonial house only for a period of one and a half years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the police has not conducted the investigation fairly and offence under Section 304-B has been converted to Section 306 IPC and if Crl. Misc. No. M-6763 of 2010 (2) the investigation is handed over to some independent agency then the true picture would come out. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that challan has been presented in the Court and charge is yet to be framed. As per reply filed by the respondent-State, a fair inquiry has been conducted after recording the statement of witnesses including the independent witnesses and the plea taken by the petitioner is not based on some facts. It has also been mentioned in the reply that after recording the statement of various persons, Section 304-B IPC was converted into Section 306 IPC. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the reply as well as other documents on record. Admittedly, only the challan has been presented and charges have not been framed. The petitioner would get an opportunity to raise all the pleas raised in this petition at the time of framing of charge. Since charge has not been framed, the present petition is dismissed as premature. August 03, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No