Ram Kumar v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 25.01.2023 Ram Kumar ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present :

Mr. Dushant Rana, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral) Request for adjournment has yet again been made on behalf of the arguing counsel.

It would be pertinent to reproduce all the orders ever since the present petition was filed way back in the year 2019, which are as under:

Present:

Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to address the arguments.

On request, adjourned to 24.02.2020.

20.12.2019 sd/-

Present:

Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a short accommodation.

-2Adjourned to 05.03.2020.

24.02.2020 sd/-

Present:

Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, adjourned to 17.04.2020.

05.03.2020 sd/-

Present:

Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** On request, adjourned to 17.10.2022.

28.07.2022 sd/-

Present:

Mr. Saleem Ahmad, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** Mr. Saleem Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner has sought an adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is suffering from fever.

Adjourned to 25.01.2023.

17.10.2022 sd/- A perusal of the above orders clearly reveal that on one pretext or the other adjournments have been sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Admittedly, the instant petition has been pending for the last

-3four years. Hence, this Court does not deem it appropriate to adjourn the case any further.

The petitioner is impugning the order dated 13.10.2018 (Annexure P-2) vide which charges were framed against him under Sections 406, 420, 506 r/w 120-B IPC.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner for setting aside the impugned order, more so, when the prosecution evidence is underway. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise on the basis of the material collected by the investigating agency commission of offence under Sections 406, 420, 506 r/w 120-B IPC is clearly made out and hence, the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

Heard At the time of framing of charges, the Court is to just confine itself to the evaluation of material produced before it by the investigating agency with the sole purpose to judge if a prima facie case is made out for attracting the mischief of the alleged offence(s) or not. This Court, in the circumstances, would loathe to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC and set aside the impugned order (Annexure P-2) as no patent illegality can be found in it. The complainant has levelled specific allegations in the FIR in question of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation against all the accused including the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated or not would be a matter of trial and would be appreciated by the trial court when evidence is led by the parties.

-4As a sequel to the above, instant petition being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE 25.01.2023 sonia Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No