Crl. Misc. No.M-53451 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: October 15, 2010. Crl. Misc. No.M-53451 of 2007. Karnail Singh. .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Sanjay Majithia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Bajwa, DAG., Punjab. M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL). Petitioner seeks the quashing of FIR No.193 dated 30.08.2007, under Sections 406 IPC, Police Station, Bhaulath, District, Kapurthala, registered at the instance of Mandip Kaur, respondent No.2, alleging that she had been maltreated by her husband Vikramjit Singh and the petitioner who happens to be the father of Vikramjit Singh. There are allegations of misappropriation of dowry articles of the complainant. . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-53451 of 2007 Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.2, has married his son and they have left for U.K., but on account of matrimonial dispute between the complainant and the son of the petitioner, a divorce has already been granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction at U.K. It is claimed that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had retained an Alto Car entrusted to him. It is submitted that the said Car had already been returned by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that complainant Mandip Kaur is at present residing in U.K. The State counsel has opposed the petition for quashing of FIR on the ground that the charges have already been framed. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and State counsel as well as have gone through the facts and circumstances of this case. The mala fide of respondent No.2, to involve her husband and his family members is apparent from the record but yet merely because the complainant has obtained divorce and is residing separately, cannot be taken as a circumstance to quash the FIR. Taking into consideration, the totality of the circumstances and the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction that the trial will be concluded within a period of one year. In case the petitioner moves an application for exemption from personal appearance, the same would be allowed subject to any conditions imposed by the trial Court. It will . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-53451 of 2007 be open to the trial Court to close the evidence of the prosecution in case the complainant does not appear before the trial Court on three consecutive dates of hearing. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE October 15, 2010. rka . . . 3