1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 15021-M of 2009
Date of Decision: 16.7.2009
***
Jit Singh @ Ajit Singh & Anr.
.. Petitioners
Vs.
Gurdev Kaur
.. Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. V.K. Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The petitioners are seeking quashing of criminal complaint
No.91 dated 13.8.2005, under Sections 387, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 511
IPC titled as Gurdev Kaur Vs. Ajit Singh & Ors. filed by the respondent and
also to the order dated 1.4.2009 whereby the petitioners and others have
been summoned by the Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Kapurthala for
commission of the aforesaid offences.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also
gone through the paper book carefully.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners has confined his arguments as to the legality of the summoning
order dated 1.4.2009 and has contended that the impugned order reveals
non-application of judicious mind by the learned court below and has been
passed in a mechanical manner. It has further been pointed out that the said
allegations pertain to the year 2001 while the complaint has been filed with
inordinate delay only on 13.8.2005.
The arguments have been scanned. The impugned order reads
thus:
2
“Heard, there is sufficient ground to proceed against the
accused under Sections 387/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 506/ 511 IPC.
Therefore accused are ordered to be summoned for 9.5.2009.”
At the threshold this Court refrain from commenting on the
merits of the case, as it may cause prejudice to any of the parties. However,
a perusal of the impugned order reveals that nothing has been discussed
therein as to what were the nature of allegations and evidence produced by
the complainant to substantiate the same, which proves sufficient for the
court below to summon the petitioners under the aforesaid provisions of
Indian Penal Code. Summoning of an accused in a criminal offence is a
serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of
routine. The order summoning a person as an accused must reflect that the
Court has applied its mind and has examined the nature of allegations made
in the complaint and the evidence, both oral as well as documentary. The
Court cannot sit as a silent spectator and has to first undertook the test of
prima facie case against a person against whom the offence is complained
of.
In view of this, the impugned order passed by the learned
court below cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter is
remitted back to the court below with a direction to first withdraw the
process issued against the petitioners pursuant to order dated 1.4.2009,
which since has been set aside and then to pass afresh order on the point of
summoning of the petitioners, without being influenced by any observation
made in this order.
The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before
the Court concerned on 24.8.2009.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
July 16,2009
Jiten