IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-9730 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 17th May, 2010 Sonia and another … Petitioners Versus Rajni … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-petitioners. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Criminal Misc. No.23979 of 2010 Issue notice of the application. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. After hearing counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The order dated April 28, 2010, whereby the main petition, viz. Criminal Misc. No.M-9730 of 2008 was dismissed in default, is hereby recalled and Criminal Misc. No.M- 9730 of 2008 is restored to its original number. Criminal Misc. No.M-9730 of 2008 Criminal Misc. No. M-9730 of 2008 Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a complaint dated 07.03.2007 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘Rajni Bhatia v. Manjit Kumar and others’ along with the summoning order dated 07.05.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Phillaur, summoning the petitioners to stand trial for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Sonia petitioner No.1 and Anu petitioner No.2 are the married sisters of husband of the respondent, therefore, they have been unnecessarily dragged into the present litigation. Before this Court could examine the averments made in the petition, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent, has stated that on the similar allegations, a case FIR No.46 dated 17.03.2008 was registered at Police Station Noormehal, District Jalandhar for offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A and 494 IPC. Petitioners had filed Criminal Misc. No.M-2273 of 2009, seeking quashing of the said FIR. It has been submitted that the above said petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the petitioners were granted liberty to raise all pleas before the trial Court at the time of framing of charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the same. In this situation, this Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid FIR case and the criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) are to be clubbed and decided together under Section 210 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot formulate a different opinion, than the one expressed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise all arguments available to them, before the trial Court at an appropriate stage. However, taking into consideration the relationship of the parties and the nature of litigation, personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court is 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-9730 of 2008 exempted, subject to their filing an undertaking that they shall cause their appearance as and when required by the trial Court. They shall also undertake that the evidence, if any, recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel, shall be binding upon them. The trial Court may incorporate any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the petitioners. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 17, 2010 rps 3