IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 5280 of 2009 Date of decision: February 25, 2009 Mandeep Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of case FIR No.59 dated 17.5.2007 registered at Police Station Machhiwara Distt. Ludhiana for the offences under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC. The quashing of the FIR has been sought qua the petitioner only. It is contended that in the initial statement (Annexure P2) that was recorded by Kulwant Singh on 17.5.2007, the petitioner was not named as an accused and it was rather stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo turbo vehicle who was in an inebriated condition. However, on the application of the father of the deceased, further investigations were carried out under Section 173 (8) CrPC and now Kulwant Singh has made another statement (Annexure P7) on 26.9.2008. He has made altogether different statements. It is submitted that the Police has now presented supplementary challan against the petitioner. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter it may be noticed that the contentions as raised with regard to the supplementary challan can be considered by the trial Court itself at the time of framing of charge. It is well-known Crl. Misc. No. M- 5280 of 2009 [2] that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is not to act as a mouthpiece or a post office of the prosecution and it can sift and weigh evidence for the limited purpose of framing of charge. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the contentions as raised in the present petition are considered by the trial Court itself at the time of consideration of framing of charge. The present is not a case which would warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. It is needless to submit that in case the challan is still framed against the petitioner and he is aggrieved against the order, he has his remedies under the law. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise his contentions before the learned trial Court. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 25, 2009 amit