IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-6759 of 2009 Date of decision: March 16, 2009 Palwinder Kuar @ Parwinder Kaur ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.221 dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure P4) registered at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana for the offences under Sections 406, 498- A and 323 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). The FIR (Annexure P4) has been registered on the complaint of Manjeet Kaur Cheema (respondent No.2). It has been alleged by respondent No.2 that she was harassed by her in-laws and was asked to bring Rs.10 lacs or to leave the matrimonial home. On these allegations, the FIR has been registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there are general and vague allegations in the FIR (Annexure P4) and no offence is made out against the petitioner who is the elder brother’s wife of the complainant (respondent No.2). Therefore, her position is similar to that of the complainant (respondent No.2). It is submitted that the marriage between the complainant (respondent No.2) and Surjit Singh – the younger brother of Ranjit Singh – the husband of the petitioner was solemnized on 28.3.2005 and nothing was concealed from respondent No.2 or her family members. The fact that Surjit Singh was a divorcee is duly reflected at the Crl. Misc. No. M-6759 of 2009 [2] time of registration of marriage on 30.3.2005 (Annexure P1). It is submitted that in fact Surjit Singh – the husband of the complainant is residing in Canada and the complainant was to go to Canada. However, she could not answer the questions properly before the Immigration Authority, on account of which she was not granted Visa to go to Canada. Therefore, now she has levelled the allegations against the petitioner of harassment and demand of Rs.10 lacs. In view of this it is submitted the FIR is liable to be quashed. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that during the course of hearing, it has been submitted that the charge report (challan) in terms of Section 173 CrPC has been filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the contentions as raised in the present petition, if raised before the said Court are considered at the time of framing of charge. It is well-known that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is not to act as a mouthpiece or a post office of the prosecution and it can sift and weigh the evidence and material on record for the limited purpose of framing of charge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner raises her contentions in accordance with law before the concerned Court at the time of consideration of framing of charge in the first instance. It is needless to mention that in the event charge is framed against the petitioner, she can avail her remedies in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise her contentions in accordance with law before the trial Court at the time of consideration of framing of charge. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 16, 2009 amit