IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 8500 of 2009
Date of decision: March 26, 2009
Mohan Kumar @ Mohan Lal
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
Present: Mr. Dheeraj Bali, Advocate for the petitioners.
****
S.S. SARON, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) seeking quashing of case FIR No.2 dated 7.3.2006
registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau Distt. Panchkula for the offences
under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code (“IPC” –
for short).
The FIR has been registered against the contractors of Municipal
Council, Panchkula. The petitioner is one of the contractors of the Municipal
Council.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of the
FIR shows that the samples of various contractors had been taken and sent to the
Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban and Forensic Scient Laboratory, Panchkula
and these were found to be not meeting the norms and were deficient in many
respects. However, it is submitted that the samples of the petitioner were not taken
and therefore FIR against him is liable to be quashed.
During the course of hearing, it has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that charge report (challan) has been filed in the Court in
terms of Section 173 CrPC. The petitioner has only placed on record an extract of
Crl. Misc. No. M- 8500 of 2009 [2]
the charge report (Annexure P4). In any case all the materials and documents which
the prosecution has filed in support of its allegations on the basis of which it
proposes to prove the charges, are before the learned trial Court. The charge in the
case has not so far been framed. It is well-known that at the time of framing of
charge, the Court is not to act as a mouthpiece or a post office of the prosecution and
it can sift and weigh evidence for the limited purpose of framing of charge.
In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the contentions
as raised in the present petition are considered by the trial Court itself at the time of
consideration of framing of charge. The present is not a case which would warrant
interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC. It is needless to submit that in case the charge is still framed against the
petitioner and he is aggrieved against the order, he has his remedies under the law.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise his contentions before the learned
trial Court itself.
(S.S. SARON)
March 26, 2009 JUDGE
amit
