IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Nos.52338-39 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No. M-9117 of 2008 Date of decision : 6.10.2010 Ranu Zadoo …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. CRM No. 52339 of 2010 The filing of certified and typed copies of Annexure A1 and Annexure A2 attached with the Crl. Misc. application is dispensed with. Crl. Misc. stands disposed of. CRM No.52338 of 2010 and CRM No. M-9117 of 2008 Crl. Misc. No.52388 of 2010 has been filed for staying the presentation of challan in FIR No.173 dated 4.12.2007 registered at Police Station Rampura, District Bathinda. It is submitted that the investigation in the case has been going on for almost 3 years which is now complete. The petitioner, it is submitted, is not in a position to go to the Court at Rampura Phul, District Bathinda. She has conceived after 5 years of her marriage with Amit Khurana and the doctors of PGI, Chandigarh have advised her complete bed rest. A reference CRM Nos.52338-39 of 2010 and [2] Crl. Misc. No. M-9117 of 2008 has been made to Annexures A1 and A2. Therefore, on medical grounds, it is submitted that the presence of the petitioner may be exempted before the learned trial Court. It is submitted that the challan be not presented. Crl. Misc. No. M-9117 of 2008 is listed for hearing on 23.11.2010. The same with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties is pre-poned for today. The said petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.173 dated 4.12.2007 registered at Police Station Rampura, District Bathinda for the offence under Section 420/34 Indian Penal Code. At the time of motion hearing, it was contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even according to the allegations in the FIR, no money was entrusted to the petitioner and she was only an employee of Mr. Kamaljit Singh Bains, Managing Director of M/s Bains International Enterprises. It was submitted that the petitioner had not made any inducement to the complainant. Besides, the petitioner was being implicated merely because she was available in Chandigarh, whereas the main culprit and accused Kamaljit Singh Bains was abroad and was, therefore, not available. Notice of motion was issued and reply of Sh. Rupinder Kumar Bhardwaj, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rampura Phul has been filed on behalf of the State. In the reply various documents have been referred to which according to the learned counsel for the State show the involvement of the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that now the final report is being filed by the prosecution for which the presence of the petitioner is required in the Court at Rampur CRM Nos.52338-39 of 2010 and [3] Crl. Misc. No. M-9117 of 2008 Phul. However, due to her medical condition, she is unable to go to the Court on each date of hearing. However, the same cannot be a ground for delaying the filing of challan. The learned trial Court is to consider the documents and material that are filed for the purposes of consideration of framing charges. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that she was only an employee of Mr. Kamaljit Singh Bains, Managing Director of M/s Bains International Enterprises and, therefore, had not made any inducement to the complainant; besides, being an employee could not be made vicariously liable for the allegations of cheating would more appropriately be considered and gone into by the learned trial Court, if raised, at the time of consideration of framing charges. It is well known that the Court at the time of consideration of framing charges does not act as a mere mouth-piece or a post- office of the prosecution and it can sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purposes for consideration of framing charge. Besides, in case an adverse order affecting the rights of the petitioner is passed, the petitioner would have the right to assail the same in accordance with law. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient if the contention as raised herein are raised before the learned trial Court itself and in case an adverse order affecting the rights of the petitioner is passed, she would be at liberty to assail the same. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a lady and has conceived after 5 years of her marriage; besides, her medical condition it is stated is unstable it would be just and expedient that her presence before the learned trial Court on each date of hearing is dispensed with. This, however, would be subject to the condition that the petitioner appears before the CRM Nos.52338-39 of 2010 and [4] Crl. Misc. No. M-9117 of 2008 learned trial Court on one date and furnishes her undertaking to the effect that she shall have no objection if the evidence is recorded in her absence. Besides, she shall appear on each date of hearing through her counsel and that she shall be present on the material dates when her presence is required by the learned trial Court for which the intimation shall be given to her counsel appearing before the learned trial Court. Accordingly, Crl. Misc. No.M-9117 of 2008 and CRM No.52338 of 2010 praying for staying the presentation of challan are disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE October 6, 2010 amit