`IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 14884 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.5.2009 Amritpal Kaur and anr …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and anr …Respondents Present: Mr Amrik Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. S.S.SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR 140 dated 10.9.2008 (P1) registered at PS Pinjore, Distt Panchkula for the offences under Sections 323, 406, 498A, 506 and 120B IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the marriage between the complainant (respondent-2) and Gurdeep Singh – brother of the petitioners was solemnized on 23.3.2003 at village Karanpur, Tehsil Kalka. It is submitted that both the petitioners are married sisters of Gurdeep Singh, husband of respondent-2 and are residing separately in their houses. The FIR against the petitioners has been registered merely on vague allegations. It is alleged in the FIR (P6) that the petitioners who are accused-4 and 5, used to visit their parental home i.e. the matrimonial home of the complainant and they created nuisance in the matrimonial home of the complainant by demand of dowry. Besides, the accused-1 and 2 i.e. Gurdeep Singh and Jasmer Kaur - husband and mother-in-law respectively Cr Misc M- 14884 of 2009 2 of complainant-respondent-2 used to give severe and merciless beating to the complainant at the instance of the petitioners and Bhag Singh, paternal uncle of husband of the petitioner – Gurdeep Singh on one pretext or the other. It is submitted that the petitioners are not liable to be prosecuted on the basis of the said allegations. During the course of hearing, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that challan in the case has been filed, however, charge has not been framed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient that the petitioners in the first instance raise their contentions before the learned trial Magistrate who would be in a better position to ascertain the nature of allegations on the basis of supporting material that has been filed along with the challan. It is well- known that the Court at the time of consideration of framing charge is not to act as a mouth piece or a post office of the prosecution and it can sift and weigh the evidence for the purpose of framing charge. Therefore, the petitioners, may avail their other remedies in the first instance. Accordingly, this petition is premature and the same is dismissed. 27.5.2009 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge