IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 270 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 25, 2009 Saroj ....Petitioner Versus Nownihal Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court on December 22, 2008 with a direction to respondent No. 1 to look into the grievances of the petitioner and to conclude the said exercise within a period of one month. According to the petitioner, though the aforementioned order was duly communicated to the respondents on 23.12.2008, yet neither any action was taken in the matter nor the culprits brought to book. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 today in the Court, which is taken on record. C.O.C.P. No. 270 of 2009 -2- A perusal of the reply would reveal that after the receipt of order dated 22.12.2008, the matter was got probed by respondent No. 1 through D.S.P., Sub Division, Sangrur, who found that no evidence, whatsoever, had been produced by the petitioner during the investigation of the case, which could make out commission of an offence under Sections 307, 498-A and 406 IPC. The offences which were made out from the statement of the petitioner recorded by the police on 15.11.2008 had already been mentioned in the FIR. Moreover, after completion of the investigation, the accused has been challaned and charges framed against them on 3.3.2009. The case is now fixed for recording of the prosecution evidence in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur. The report prepared in that regard by D.S.P., Sub Division, Sangrur was duly accepted by respondent No. 1. In view of the aforementioned, where the investigation of the case is complete and after presentation of the challan, charges have already been framed and the case fixed for recording of prosecution evidence, the present revision has been rendered infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of. Rule is discharged. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 25, 2009 JUDGE satish