IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.12285 -M of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 23, 2010 BIMLA DEVI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Krishan Sehj Pal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of case FIR No.24 dated 29.1.2005 under Sections 406/498-A, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sadar Jalandhar (Annexure P-2) and order of summoning dated 15.3.2007 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has pointed out that the petition is not maintainable insomuch as the petitioner earlier filed a petition (CRM 11278-M of 2008) before this Court for similar relief, which has been denied vide order dated 11.11.2008. It has further been pointed out that the petitioner filed an application (CRM 8964 of 2009 in CRM Criminal Misc. No.12285 -M of 2009 2 11278-M of 2008) under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for getting order dated 11.11.2008 corrected. The application has been dismissed. The petitioner has made reference in para-12 of the petition to say that the petitioner, along with her mother-in-law, had approached this court for quashing of the FIR vide CRM 11278-M of 2008. It has been pleaded that the court quashed the FIR, however, inadvertently, it is mentioned in the order that the FIR as well as summoning order are quashed qua Kartar Kaur only. In para-13 of the petition, reference has been made to the application filed for correction in order dated 11.11.2008. The order passed on 1.4.2009 in regard to the prayer for correction in order dated 11.11.2008 has been placed on record as Annexure R-2/B with the reply. A perusal of the order clearly indicates that the application filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed. Since, the petitioner had earlier carried the issue before this court and no relief had been granted, I do not find any reason to invoke the inherent powers to grant the same relief in this second petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. February 23, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?