CRM No. M-23198 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1- CRM No. M-23198 of 2009 Date of decision: 7.9.2009 Madan Lal and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 2- CRM No. M-20386 of 2009 Ved Parkash ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Gurdev Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J. This order shall dispose of two Crl. Misc. Petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-23198 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M-20386 of 2009 as same FIR has been impugned in both these petitions. These are petitions for quashing of the FIR bearing No.185 dated 24th July, 2009, registered against the petitioners under Sections 363, 366 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Fazilka. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are totally innocent. The FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 under some mistaken impression. In fact, Kamlesh Rani daughter of respondent No.2 had earlier approached this court for protection, vide Crl. Misc. No.M-16474 of 2009. The said petition was disposed of vide CRM No. M-23198 of 2009 2 order, Annexure P-2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record annexed to the petition. The allegation in the FIR is that Ved Parkash petitioner, who is serving in IRB, had developed physical relations with daughter of the complainant, namely, Kamlesh Rani. On 30th May, 2009, all the family members went to sleep at 10.00 P.M. after meal. When they woke up in the morning, they found that Kamlesh Rani was missing. The complainant alleged that Ved Parkash along with his brothers Madan Lal and Har Kishan Lal alias Pappu (petitioners) had taken away his daughter. Thus, FIR under Sections 363, 366 read with Section 34 IPC was registered on the complaint of Kanshi Ram, respondent No.2. Admittedly, the case is still at the stage of investigation. The plea raised by counsel for the petitioners are not tenable at this stage. The Investigating Officer is yet to arrive at the conclusion in the matter. It cannot be said at this stage whether pursuant to the FIR, the petitioners shall be found guilty and their names will figure in the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. There is, thus, no ground to interfere in the case in inherent jurisdiction of this court at the stage of investigation. The petitions lack merits. The same are hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 07, 2009 'rajpal'