IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-2056 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 13, 2011 Charanjit Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.K. Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate, for Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.246 dated 26.7.2005 under Sections 409, 420 IPC registered with Police Station, Jagraon, District Jagraon, placed on record as Annexure P-1 and chargesheet, Annexure P-3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Crl. Misc. No. M-2056 of 2009 [2] there is no delay in filing the case in so much as, as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 677, ‘Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. & others vs. State of Maharashtra & another’ even a petition under Section 482 can be filed. 3. There is no dispute with the proposition pleaded on behalf of the petitioner. However, I find that seven prosecution witnesses have already been examined. It is a case of 2006. Charges were framed on 18.7.2006. No revision there-against was preferred. The present petition, for the first time, was argued in January 2009. The case, at this point in time, is at the stage of trial. Seven witnesses have already been examined. This Court considers it appropriate to allow the trial to proceed. The petitioner would in any case be entitled to take all the defences before the Trial Court. 4. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 13, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?