1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 746 of 2007 Date of Decision: 6.8.2009 *** Mangat Ram .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The grouse of the petitioner was that he was arrested by the police in case FIR No. 399 dated 11.10.2002 under Sections 420 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, on 12.10.2002 and produced before the Court of Illaqa Magistrate at 4.15 p.m. His person was handed over to the police custody for one day. He was to produce by the police on 13.10.2002 uptill 4.15 p.m., whereas he was produced before the Duty Magistrate one hour late i.e. at 5.15 p.m. According to him, during this illegal confinement of one hour, he and others were tortured and this time was used by the private respondents, in whose custody they were, for abstracting their disclosure statements and taking away them outside the jurisdiction of the Court. On these broad allegations, he preferred a complaint before the Court below and on the basis of preliminary evidence led by the complainant, respondents No.2 and 3 were ordered to be summoned vide order dated 21.8.2004 for commission of offence under Sections 166, 167, 323, 330, 342 and 348 IPC. Dis-satisfied with the summoning order, respondent No.2 preferred a revision before the Court of Session, which has been accepted and the summoning order has been set aside to the extent of both the private 2 respondents. Hence this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the paper book carefully. There is no dispute as to the production of the petitioner before the Court late by an hour, after the grant of one day of police remand. With regard to the alleged beating, no medical was produced by the accused nor there is anything on record which is suggestive of the fact that after being produced before the Court be made any prayer for his medical examination. The other allegations that he was taken out of the jurisdiction of the Court and the time being mis-utilized for obtaining their disclosure statements, is concerned, a perusal of the impugned judgment rendered by the revisional Court reveals that it was observed that what the respondents did was in discharge of their official duties, being part of the investigation of the case in which the petitioner and others were arrested. Accordingly, it was rightly held that the respondents are entitled to the benefit provided under Section 197(2) Cr.P.C. This aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned summoning Court below, while issuing the process against the respondents. Once the summoning order has been found to be not sustainable, it cannot be said that the approach of the revisional Court in setting aside the summoning order and discharging both respondents is illegal, perverse or based on no evidence and hence calls for no interference. The instant petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 6,2009 Jiten