1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 10592-M of 2008.
Date of Decision: 17.8.2009
***
Ravinder Gasso & Ors.
.. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana & Anr.
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. Vikas Awasthy, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana.
Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The challenge in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
to the Criminal Complaint titled as Harish Kaushal Vs. Ravinder Gasso &
Ors. filed by respondent No.2 and also to the order dated 21.11.2006
whereby the petitioners and one Ramesh Arora have been summoned by the
Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Kurukshetra for commission of offences under
Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 IPC.
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 21.11.2006 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 contended that the
perusal of impugned complaint reveals nothing specific has been attributed
to the present petitioners and the allegations, if taken are true, do not attract
any of the offence, for which the petitioners and another have been
summoned. It has further been stated that the complainant wants to grab this
2
plot and this assertion has been supported by Municipal Council, Thanesar
in their reply submitted to the instant petition.
The arguments have been scanned. 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
although the complainant besides examining himself as CW1 also produced
Subhash Sudha and Rajiv Kaushal as CW2 and CW3 respectively, but there
is no reflection in the impugned order as to what is the nature of evidence
produced by the complainant which proves sufficient for the court below to
summon the petitioners under the aforesaid provisions of Indian Penal
Code. It is no doubt true that the Court is not required to delve deep into the
allegations of the complainant, the evidence produced thereto and give
detailed reasons for summoning, but at the same time it cannot be forgotten
that by bringing two witnesses to support the allegations, the criminal law
can be set into motion. 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 and another, pursuant to order dated
21.11.2006, which since has been set aside and then to pass afresh order on
the point of summoning, but without being influenced by any observation
made in this order.
The complainant to appear before the Court concerned on
8.9.2009.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
August 17,2009
Jiten