Crl.M.No.20644-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.20644-M of 2010 Date of Order: 27.9.2010 Simrajit Kaur and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. D.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Crl.M.No.36436 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl.M.No.20644-M of 2010 By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.27 dated 2.2.2008 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act, P.S. Bholath, District Kapurthala as well as order dated 24.2.2010 (P.11) whereby the charges have been framed. It is stated that petitioner No.1-Simrajit Kaur was married to one Partap Singh on 27.11.1996. Out of this wedlock, one girl, namely, Rashwant Kaur was born on 1.1.1998 and a son named Jaskaran Singh was born on 12.12.1998. It is further stated that Partap Singh went to United States of America in 2005, where during the subsistence of his marriage, he contracted second marriage with one Jasbir Kaur on 22.1.2007. Subsequently, at the intervention of the respectables of the family in India, a compromise was effected on 7.4.2007 (P.3), whereby it was agreed that Crl.M.No.20644-M of 2010 #2# Partap Singh and his father-Bachhittar Singh would pay a sum of Rs.30 lacs to petitioner No.1-Simarjit Kaur and divorce would be obtained by petitioner No.1. It was also agreed that the children would also be taken to USA by Partap Singh. It appears that the present FIR was lodged by Ex-father in law/Bachhittar Singh on 2.2.2008 with the allegations that a sum of Rs.30 lacs have been obtained by Simarjit Kaur by deceit and fraud and that the passports of the children in 2001 were got prepared by mentioning the names of their father as Amrik Singh. It is also apparent that the petitioner had approached this Court before framing of charge by filing Crl.M.No.29105-M of 2009 praying for quashing of the afore mentioned FIR and subsequent proceedings. The same was disposed of as not pressed with permission to take all the pleas before the ld. Trial Court at the appropriate stage. Thereafter, order dated 24.2.2010 (P.11) was passed whereby the charges were framed. It is not disputed that order dated 24.2.2010 (P.11) whereby charges have been framed is revisable order and no revision has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 397 Cr.P.C. After arguing for some time, in view of the fact that revision against the impugned order dated 24.2.2010 (P.11) is maintainable under Section 397 Cr.P.C, learned counsel does not press this petition but seeks permission to file revision petition taking all the pleas raised in this petition before the Revisional Court. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. September 27, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE