Criminal Misc. No. M-38198 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-38198 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.12.2011 Rupinder Aulakh and Others ... Petitioners Versus Manu Mehra ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioners. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that a criminal complaint bearing No. 38 dated 19.11.2008 (Annexure P9) titled as “Manu Mehra v. Rupinder Aulakh and Others” be quashed as the complaint and subsequent proceedings including the summoning order dated 18.8.2011 (Annexure P12) are misuse of process of criminal law. Petitioner No.1-Rupinder Aulakh is stated to be a Principal of Manav Public School, Anand Avenue, Maqbool Road, Amritsar, which, according to learned counsel, is a reputed school. Petitioner No.2- R.S.Aulakh alias Romi is her husband and petitioner No.3- K.R.Maheshwari is Chairman of the school. Complainant-Manu Mehra was employed as a Mathematics Teacher in the said school. According to the petitioners, on 11.10.2008, by invoking service and conduct rules for the employee of the school, services of the respondent were dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has Criminal Misc. No. M-38198 of 2011 2 referred to the letter (Annexure P4), which was issued by the Chairman to this effect. She further submits that on 11.10.2008, the respondent has received the said letter and three months' salary, in advance, was also paid to her. In support of these facts, three cheques and vouchers are also annexed with the present petition. It is stated that vide Annexure P5, the respondent had executed a receipt for having received the pass book and also stated that she had been relieved from her duties and all the dues had been paid to her. Learned counsel further submits that vide Annexure P6, the respondent had sought experience certificate also. It is urged that since the services of respondent were dispensed with, she submitted an application (Annexure P7) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, stating therein that force has been used and she was coerced to submit the resignation. It is further contended that after about one month and eight days, the aggrieved employee filed a false complaint (Annexure P1) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. She led preliminary evidence and vide summoning order dated 18.8.2011 (Annexure P12), the petitioners were summoned to stand trial for the offence under Sections 323, 354, 341, 506 and 34 IPC. Having relied upon the above said documents, learned counsel for the petitioners has further canvassed before me that Anoop Singh, Head Constable, was examined as CW.5 by the respondent in her preliminary evidence, who had only proved complaint (Annexure P7) submitted by her. According to the learned counsel, it was incumbent upon the witness to state that on an application (Annexure P7), an inquiry was held and the petitioners were absolved of the alleged Criminal Misc. No. M-38198 of 2011 3 offences. This petition raises two pertinent questions for consideration of this Court:- a) What are the parameters for summoning the accused? b) Whether the documents, relied upon by the petitioners in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be taken into consideration for setting aside the summoning order dated 18.8.2011? Learned counsel has not disputed that for summoning the accused, test of prima facie has to be applied. In the complaint, it has been stated in categoric terms that on 11.10.2008, accused/petitioner No.2 had caught hold right arm of the complainant, whereas his companion caught hold of her hairs. It is stated that she was given beating. Whether beating was given or not is a disputed question of fact which can only be determined after the parties adduce their evidence. By applying the test of prima facie, taking into consideration the preliminary evidence, so led, the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, has rightly summoned the petitioners for trial. It has been held in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 568 that the documents relied upon by the accused are to be proved by leading necessary evidence. Furthermore in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors., 2008(4) RCR (Crl.) 924, it was held that for taking documents into consideration under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has to first arrive at a conclusion that documents relied by the accused have unimpeachable Criminal Misc. No. M-38198 of 2011 4 evidence of sterling quality. This Court at this stage cannot comment upon truthful and veracity of the documents relied by the petitioner. Furthermore, the inquiry held by the police is not ipso facto admissible and the same is to be proved by examining the witnesses. Therefore, this Court, at this stage, cannot hold that the allegations levelled in the complaint are false. Their probability will be determined during the course of trial when the witnesses will face the test of cross- examination. Hence, no intervention of this Court is warranted. However, in the present case, the possibility cannot be ruled out that due to strained employer-employee relationship, the present litigation has ensued. Therefore, taking totality of circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the view that personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court can be exempted. Accordingly, personal appearance of the petitioners is exempted before the trial Court subject to filing an undertaking that they shall cause appearance as and when required and the evidence recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel shall be binding upon them. Trial Court may also specify any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the petitioners. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 19, 2011 “DK”