IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-27692 of 2009 Date of Decision:22.3.2010 Paramjit Kaur .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. R. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.5. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present petition has been moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to the official respondents to restrain SP(D) from carrying out any inquiry with respect to FIR No.18 dated 12.3.2009 under Sections 465 (subsequently added Sections 420,468 IPC). It is stated that an inquiry was held by SDM in which the respondent No.5 was found guilty under the aforesaid offences. On an application moved by the respondent No.5, another inquiry was conducted by the SHO. The respondent No.5 was once again found guilty. The said report was approved by SSP concerned. Therefore, an FIR was registered. However, on an application moved by respondent No.5 to the DIG, another inquiry was marked to DSP. The said DSP also found respondent No.5 guilty of the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved, respondent No.5 moved yet another application for fresh inquiry. On the basis of the said application, DGP marked fresh inquiry for the third time to SP(D). CRM M-27692 of 2009 -2- Vide order dated 6.10.2009, the Court directed that the final report shall not be submitted. However, SP(D) was directed to continue with the inquiry. On 15.3.2010, this Court directed the SP(D) to place on record the inquiry report in a sealed cover. In pursuance to the said order, the said report was submitted in a sealed cover before this Court. The same was opened. On perusal of the same, it is seen that SP(D) has found the respondent No.5 guilty of an offence under Section 465 and 471 of the IPC. However, Sections 420 and 468 of the IPC has been deleted. The said inquiry report is sealed again and returned back to ASI Jarnail Singh. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the present petition in view of the inquiry report of SP(D), as not pressed with liberty to take all the pleas before the trial court at an appropriate stage. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. However, in view of the facts of the present case, no further inquiry is required and final report shall stand be duly submitted before the trial Court. 22.3.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE