Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljinder Singh Alias Baljant Singh And ... vs Gurjant Singh on 25 July, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRM M No. 37037 of 2011(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. M No. 37037 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: July 25, 2012
Baljinder Singh alias Baljant Singh and others...........Petitioners
Versus
Gurjant Singh...........................................................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Vikas Kumar,Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Amandeep Singh ,Advocate for
Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate for the respondent.
Sabina, J.
Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 22.9.2011 (Annexure P2) whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, while allowing the revision petition, directed the trial Court to summon the accused under Sections 420, 467,468,471,472,120-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short`IPC'). The complaint filed by the respondent was dismissed by the trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the respondent had preferred the revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Court of revision had acted beyond its jurisdiction. The Court of revision could have remanded the matter back to the trial Court for further inquiry and for a fresh decision in accordance with law but could not have assumed the jurisdiction of the trial Court and order CRM M No. 37037 of 2011(O&M) 2 summoning of the accused in the complaint filed by the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioners were liable to be summoned as, prima facie, it had been established on record that they committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 467,468,471,472,120-B and 506 IPC. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Harun Khan vs. Maheshchand 1997(2) Crimes 301 wherein it was held as under:-
"8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on examining the records of the instant cases, came to the conclusion that if the Magistrate has committed any error in dismissing the complaint filed on behalf of the non-applicant under Section 203 Cr.P.C., then in view of Section 398, Cr.P.C. he has only jurisdiction to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Magistrate subordinate to him to make further enquiry into the complaint which has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
9. In Rajaram's case (supra) this Court while considering Section 398 Cr.P.C. has held that the only order that can be made by the revising Court under Section 398 Cr.P.C 1973 is for further enquiry. No direction therefore in the nature of putting any impediment in the judicial discretion to be exercised by the lower Court has to be made. Any direction or instruction indicating the manner in which further enquiry is to be made and particularly whether to frame a particular charge can also not be given. A similar view was reiterated in case of CRM M No. 37037 of 2011(O&M) 3 G.D.Singh's case (supra)
10. In view of the facts and the law applicable to the instant cases, I find that Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar has committed illegality and acted beyond his jurisdiction in reversing the order of the Magistrate and taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 IPC. The order of learned Additional Sessions Judge in all the aforesaid three revisions being without jurisdiction and illegal is deserves to be demolished.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
The complaint filed by the respondent was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P1), after recording the preliminary evidence. If in the opinion of the Court of revision the trial Court had failed to properly inquire into the matter, it could have been remanded the case back to the trial Court for passing a fresh order after due inquiry. However, the Court of revision could not have assumed the jurisdiction of the trial Court and the order summoning of the accused.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.9.2011 (Annexure P2) is set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
( Sabina ) Judge July 25, 2012 arya CRM M No. 37037 of 2011(O&M) 4