Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Singh Etc vs Khem Chand on 11 August, 2008
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc.26382-M of 2007
DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 11, 2008
JAI SINGH ETC. ....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
KHEM CHAND .... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. VB Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, is to quash summoning order dated 4.8.2005 (Annexure P-8).
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were arrayed as accused and FIR No.96 dated 24.1.1998 under Sections 148, 149, 447, 448, 506, 511, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sadar Thanesar, came to be lodged. The matter was investigated by the C.I.D. under the directions of this Court in CRM 1611 of 1999 in CRM 20678-M of 1998. After thorough investigation, a report was submitted on 31.7.1998 recommending cancellation of the case. Further, it was recommended that proceedings under Section 182, Code of Criminal Procedure, be carried against Khem Chand (respondent-complainant) for Criminal Misc.26382-M of 2007 2 registering a false case.
It seems that subsequently a criminal complaint came to be filed with regard to the same incident. The Chief Judicial Magistrate without dealing with the reasons given for cancellation of the FIR, has proceeded to summon the petitioners vide the impugned order (Annexure P-8). Detailed reasons have not been given on the strength of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in U.P. Pollution Control Board v. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd., 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 421.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in the absence of any reasons for summoning the petitioners, a prejudice has been caused to the petitioners as without knowing the reasons and material that indicates the commission of the offences, the petitioners can not effectively bring out their defence. It is also pleaded that summoning is a serious matter and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 761, has held (in para-26) in the following terms:-
"26. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and, that would be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his Criminal Misc.26382-M of 2007 3 witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that a cancellation report had been filed assigning reasons and the fact that the investigation had been conducted on the directions of this Court, learned counsel for the respondent concedes that the matter be referred back to he Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, to pass a fresh and reasoned order.
In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Order dated 4.8.2005 (Annexure P-8) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, for adjudication.
August 11, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE