Criminal Misc. No.M-21441 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-21441 of 2008 Date of decision : 1.9.2008 Bhal Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. S.M.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. S. D. ANAND, J. The facts are as under:- The Investigating Officer ( entrusted with the investigation of FIR No. 722 dated 27.8.06 under Sections 420-120-B IPC) directed banker (Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Gangwa, Tehsil and Distt. Hisar, Haryana-respondent no.2) to freeze the account held by the petitioners. The petitioners challenged it by filing a plea before the Court. Learned Trial Magistrate declined that plea vide order dated 26.9.2006 (Annexure P-1). The petitioners filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, as withdrawn, vide order dated 28.10.2006. The petitioners again filed a similar plea before the learned Trial Magistrate which was declined vide order dated 6.11.2006. This time, however, instead of opting to go to the Sessions, the petitioners came over to this Court to obtain quashment of that order. The initial plea of the petitioners having been rejected by the Criminal Misc. No.M-21441 of 2008 -2- **** learned Trial Court and their having gone in revision before the Court of Sessions, petitioners could not have validly gone in for another similar plea before the learned Trial Magistrate. Apart there from, when the successor-in-interest of previous Court ( which dismissed the earlier plea vide order dated 26.9.2006 reiterating the earlier view, the principle of fair play demanded that petitioners ought to have gone to the Court of Sessions in the first instance. The position that, thus, emerges is that petitioner, after having disabled the Court of Sessions from adjudicating upon the controversy (by withdrawing the plea)could not have asked for re- adjudication that very plea by the successor Court of the learned Trial Magistrate. Though the concurrence of jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions as well as this Court in a case of the indicated category, cannot be denied, it was inappropriate for the petitioners to avoid going to the Court of Sessions this time and opting to come to this Court for quashment. No case is made out either for quashment. The petition is held to be devoid of merit. Dismissed. September 01, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE