CRM No. M-46336 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. 46336 of 2007 Date of decision: 14.01.2009 Jasmer Singh & another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana. Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rajan Gupta, J. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits inter alia that the complaint in question has been instituted only as a counter blast to certain earlier litigation pending between the parties. The detail of the litigation has been enumerated in the petition. He further submits that it is only with a view to settle personal vendetta that the present complaint has been lodged in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat. Pursuant to the said complaint, the petitioners have been summoned. Since all the averments made in the present petition are factual in nature and can be decided only after the evidence is led, the matter cannot be decided under inherent jurisdiction of this court. The contentions raised by the petitioners can be gone into by the trial court at the time, the evidence is led before it. I, therefore, find no ground to interfere in the inherit jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The CRM No. M-46336 of 2007 2 petition is, therefore, dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that petitioner No.2 is serving in the Army and is at present posted in some operational area. He, therefore, prays that his personal appearance during the trial be exempted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that personal appearance of petitioner No.2 before the trial court shall remain exempted except on those dates when it is required for the purpose of the trial. The trial court will be at liberty to summon petitioner No.2 as and when required by it. Disposed of. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE January 14, 2009 'rajpal'