82 J Crl RevI 919 of 2009 I l 0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH lk k R k k Crl Rev No19 of 2009 Date of decisior October 29 2009 R ir 9r 4t k RajPal and others eePetitioners m Versus 0 C X State of Haryanaand another 0 Respondents X r r t t CORAM1 HONBLE MR JUSTICE JORA SINGH 7t 5 IIr t W I oti Presentl Mr P Rana Advocate forthe petitioner 0 Mo KS Godara DAG Haryana 7 Z Mr RoopakBansal Advocatefor respondentno Oa 1t 1 R k R JORA SINGH J Rajpaland others filed this revision petitionto impugnthe dated 1 2008 passedby Additional Sessions Judge Rewari Complaintunder Section 1PC was filed byRajKumar againstRajpaIand others complaint was dismissed vide judgmentdated 101 22007 4nnexure F21 passedbyJMICRewari Againstthe judgmentdated 10 122007 revision was Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.19 12: 22 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 83 J Crl Revl 919 of 2009 2 0 Vide judgmentdated 1 2008 revision was accepted Trial Court was directedto issue process againstthe accused persons Feelingdissatisfied with the judgmentdated 1 9 2008 present revisionpetition was filed byRajpaland others Noticeof motionwas issued m haveheard the Iearned counsel for the and and have gone through the file Learned counsel for the C3 arguedthat privatecomplaint lnexure Pm21under Z C5 Sections IPC was filed by Raj Kumar but the X samewas dismissed vide Judgmentdated 10 122007 ARer the dismissal of complaintreviSIOn was institutedbyRaj Kumar but the 2 r Iearned Additional Sessions judgewronglyopinedthat evidence on I file was not scrutinizecl In fact evidence on the file prima 08 facieshows that a case is made out for of the accused C Evidenceon fiie is sufficient to issue process Order dated 3 Z 122007 was set aside Counsel for the relied upon Qm Sant Sinqh vs Gurmail Sinqh 198911PLR 283 Saroj Kumar Ravvs Shantilata Mallick 2004 CrI L J 5088 Learnedcounsel for the respondentsarguedthat afterthe dismissalof complaint vide judgment dated 1122007 revision was filed Learned Additional Sessions judgeRewari by acceptingthe revlslon directedthe trial Couit to scrutinize the evidence on file Afterthe order of Additional Sessions JudgeRewari Iearned JMIC iS yetto see whetheraccused are to be summoned under any Section ofthe IPC or the complainthas to be dismissed In case accused are summonedunder any Section of the 1PC then summoned 1 Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.19 12: 22 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 84 1 J Crl Rev No 919 of 2009 3 0 accused has the ghtto the summoningorder In the absenceof order revision is not maintainabie Submissionof the Iearned Counsel for the seems to be reasonable one Raj Kumar had filed complaint Annexure Fe2againstRajpaland othersebut the complaint Annexure m E P2 was dismissed vide order dated 10122007 0 Againstorder dated 1122007 revision was filed byRaj C X Kumar and the same was accepted Learned Additional Sessions C5 JudgeRewari in para no4 of the judgment observed as under X The Ieamed trial Court has absolutelyfailed to Z see the evidence Ied by whlch shows a primafacie case for the X accused persons The material producedby 05 is sufficient to issue process against the accused persons In the Iight of my 7 Z discussion l am of the considered view that the order dated 101 22007 ls Iiable to be set aside as the same is illegaland againstthe evidence Ied by Accordinglythe order passed by Ieamed trial Court is set aside The revision of the revisionist is allowed File be consignedto recordmroomafter due compliance Lower Coutt record be sent back with the copy of this judgment The revisionist is directed to appearbefore the Iearned Trial Court on 82008 Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.19 12: 22 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 85 4 Crl Rev No19 of 2009 4 0 After the order of AdditIonal Sessions Judge Rewari matter is pendingwith Judicial MagistrateRewari Court is yet to passorder There is possibilityof the accused or dismissal of the complaint In case complaintis dismissed then position is otherwise and in case accused are summoned under any 1 Sectionof the IPC then the summonedaccused would be at Iiberty to O challengethe order In Sant Singh pral criminal C X was dismssed Revision was filed and held that Sessions C5 Judgehas no under Section 398 CrC to givea Onding X that there was sufficient groundto proceedagainstaccused and to Z send the case to the trial Court for framingthe charges Sessions 1 Court can send the case to CJM eitherto make an enquiryhimself or to direct any Subordinate Magistrate to hold an enquiry In Saroj 08 Kumars case Supral complaint before the Magistratewas on the J allegationof rape of scheduled caste Iady Magistrate allowed Z to produceevidence in supportof her complaintAfter IVl evidence Magistratecame to the conclusion that evidence was unworthyof credence so as to warrant his taking furtheraction in the case Complaint was dismissed bythe revisional Court without properly the facts and circumstances and of Iaw had set aside the order of magistrateOrder of the revisionalCourt was found to be not proper Relevant Section of the Cr 1 e Section 398 is as under 398 Power to order inquiOn examiningany record under Section 397 or Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.19 12: 22 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 86 t 4e Crl RevI 919 of 2009 5 0 otherwise the HighCoutt or the Sessions Judge maydirect the Chief Judicial Magistrateby himself or byany of the subordinate to him to makeand the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself rnakeor direct any subordinateMagistrate to make t0 futtherinquiryinto any complaintwhich has been 0 dismissedunder Section 203 of SulSectior41 of C Section 204 or into the case of any person accused X C5 of an offence who has been discharged X Provided that no Court shall make any Z directionunder this Section for inquiryinto the case 2 of any person who has been dischargedunless X such person has had an of showing c4j cause whysuch directionshould not be made 00 In view of the abovesaid provisionrevisional Court in Z of Section 398 Cr FC HighCourt or Sessions Court after the record under Section 397 or otherwise may direct the CJM by himself or by any of the Magistrate Subordinate to him to make furtherenquiryinto any complaint which has been dismissed underSection 203 or Section 204 41Cr Insteadof directingCJM to make furtherenquiryIearned AdditionalSessions judgeopinedthat trial Coun failed to appreciate the evidence of the which shows primafacie case for of the accused Evidence iS sufficient to issue process the accused persons Indirectlyorder shows that direction wasgivento the Magistrateto summon the accused Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.19 12: 22 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 87 Crl Rev 919 of 2009 6 41 In view of Section 398 CrC trial Court e the Magistrate is directed to make furtherenquiryAfterfurther enquiry to scrutinize the evidence on file and pass fresh order So the impugned order is modified to the extent that Magistrate is to make further enquiryinto the complaintdismissed on 10 122007 After fresh enquiryto pass order as per Iaw As a sequelto the above discussion revision without 0 0 meritis dismissed X C5 0 v X ve October 29 2009 1 Z ritu JUDGE 08 00 3 Z r 1 Gupta Suruchi 2013.03.19 12: 22 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document