1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 30036-M of 2009. Date of Decision: 27.10.2009 *** Partap Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner has been summoned in a private criminal complaint instituted by respondent No.2, for the commission of offence under Sections 504, 506, 452, 427 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 3(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner is seeking quashing of the criminal complaint as also the summoning order passed therein to his extent. 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 13.7.2009 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 contended that the perusal of impugned complaint reveals that nothing specific has been attributed to the present petitioner and the allegations, if taken are true, do not attract any of the offence, for which the petitioner has been summoned. The arguments have been considered. 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 2 reveals that although the complainant besides examining himself also produced six other witnesses and tendered number of documents, 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 petitioner under the aforesaid provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as Act. 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 some 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 dated 13.7.2009 passed by the learned court below cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside to the extent of petitioner. The matter is remitted back to the court below with a direction to first withdraw the process issued against the petitioner, pursuant to order dated 13.7.2009, 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. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 27,2009 Jiten