Criminal Misc. No. 54118-M of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 54118-M of 2005. Date of decision:-19.5.2008. Subhash Sharma ...Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navneet Singh, AAG Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL J. The prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No. 838 dated 16.11.1999 under Sections 419/120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Central Faridabad, alongwith order dated 24.8.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad framing charge against the petitioner and order dated 25.2.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby revision against the order framing charge was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that FIR No.18 dated January 20, 1990 was registered against one Ranjit Singh son of Bala Singh under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC at Police Station, Hodal. In that case Ranjit Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo following punishment vide judgment dated 20.07.1996/22.07.1996 :- Sr.No. U/Sections Punishment Fine (Rs.) In default of payment of fine punishment for 1 279 IPC Three months (rigorous imprisonment) 250/- - 2 337 IPC Three months (rigorous imprisonment) 500/- - 3 304-A IPC Six months - - Criminal Misc. No. 54118-M of 2005 -2- Ranjit Singh moved an application for suspension of sentence in order to enable him to file an appeal. He was admitted to bail on furnishing of bail bonds for a sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety of the like amount. Surety of one Karam Chand son of Jai Parkash, resident of Village Kithwadi, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad was furnished which was identified by the petitioner. In appeal filed by Ranjit Singh, vide order dated August 9, 1996, he was ordered to be released on bail. On account of non-appearance of Ranjit Singh in the court, notice was issued to the surety. The report was received that no such person in the name of Karam Chand son of Jai Parkash is residing in village Kithwadi and as a consequence thereof notice was served upon the petitioner, who had identified him. The petitioner also failed to produce the surety. Under these circumstances it was presumed that it was a case of impersonation on identification by the petitioner. It was on the communication of the court that FIR No. 838 dated November 16, 1999 was registered against the petitioner under Section 419/120-B IPC. In the above noted FIR, the charges were framed against the petitioner vide order dated August 24, 2001 and even a revision filed by the petitioner against the charges was also dismissed vide order dated February 25, 2004. It is in this factual matrix that the petitioner is before this court seeking quashing of FIR and subsequent orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted in the present case as no offence under Section 419 IPC is made out. At the most it was a case falling under Section 192 IPC but the charge has been framed under Sections 419/120-B IPC. However, the contention is totally misconceived. It is a case where the petitioner had identified a wrong person, who stood surety for Ranjit Singh and when Criminal Misc. No. 54118-M of 2005 -3- notice was issued to him on account of non-appearance of Ranjit Singh, he was found to be non-existent. The petitioner is prima facie guilty of offence under Section 419/120-B IPC. It is not a case which falls under Section 192 IPC as no evidence as such was led by any of the parties in any case. Accordingly, I do not find it to be a fit case for quashing of FIR. As far as challenge to the order passed by the courts below framing of charge against the petitioner is concerned, even that prayer of the petitioner cannot be entertained for the reason that the petitioner has already availed of remedy of revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the order framing the charge and the same having been rejected, a second revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is specifically barred. The case in hand does not fall in any of the exceptions carved out where under extraordinary circumstances interference can be sought under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While parting with the judgment, this court is constraint to record that the Advocates are considered as officers of the court on which much reliance is placed in court proceedings. It is always expected that they conduct in a manner befitting their status and do not compromise their status or dignity for small time benefit. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. May 19, 2008. (RAJESH BINDAL) asija JUDGE