IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-3178 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 07, 2008 Nachhattar Kaur @ Shatro & Another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. H.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. G.S. Punia, Advocate, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.313 dated 31.12.2003 (Annexure P-1) lodged for commission of offences under Sections 406, 420, 494 and 120-B IPC, with Police Station, Sahnewal. Learned counsel has referred to a judgment rendered by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.77349-M of 2006, decided on 17.10.2007, titled ‘Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’. Crl. Misc. No. M-3178 of 2008 [2] Contention is that Karamjit Singh is a co-accused of the petitioners. I have read the judgment. I find that in the case of Karamjit Singh (Crl. Misc. No.77349-M of 2006), a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was neither paid to the petitioner nor it is alleged to have been received by the petitioner (Karamjit Singh). Learned counsel for the respondent State has pointed out that this sum of money (Rs.6,00,000/-) was infact paid to Nachhattar Kaur @ Shatro wife of Nachhattar Singh. In this view of the matter, there being specific averments and material which could be translated into legal evidence, petition qua petitioner No.1 deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent State has pointed out that Sikander Singh (petitioner No.2) has no regard for law and even after making futile attempts, he could not be arrested. The case itself dates back to 31.12.2003. Proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. were carried and petitioner No.2 has been declared as Proclaimed Offender. Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been filed. Thus, investigating agency has found prima facie that offences have been committed by the petitioners. On perusal of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Court having competent jurisdiction has come to a prima facie conclusion that Crl. Misc. No. M-3178 of 2008 [3] offences indeed have been committed by the petitioners. Charges have been framed. The trial is going on. So much so, two of the prosecution witnesses have appeared and their examination-in-chief has already been concluded. Their cross examination on behalf of the accused, however, has not been concluded till date. In view of the stage of the case also, I find that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) August 07, 2008 JUDGE avin