IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No.47431-M of 2007 Date of decision : 27-01-2009 Ramesh Chand ....Petitioner VERSUS Ved Parkash & another ....Respondents 2. Crl. Misc. No.39994-M of 2007 Date of decision : 27-01-2009 Ramesh Chand ....Petitioner VERSUS Ved Parkash & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate, Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana, KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of two Crl. Misc. No. M-47431 of 2007 preferred by Ramesh Chand Vs. Ved Parkash and another u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for seeking quashing of order dated 14-3-2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Palwal, whereby he treated the protest petition to be complaint and gave opportunity to the complainant to lead his preliminary evidence and Crl. Misc. No.M-39994-M of 2007 preferred by Ramesh Chand Vs. Ved Parkash and another u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 23-3-2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal. Crl. Misc. No.47431-M of 2007 -2- It has been held by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Pakhandu and others Vs. State of U.P. And another, 2002, Crl. L.J. 121O as under:- "From the aforesaid decisions, it is thus clear that where the Magistrate receives final report the following four courses are open to him and he may adopt any one of them as the facts and circumstances of the case may require:- (1) He may agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the police, accept the report and drop the proceedings. But before so doing, he shall given an opportunity of hearing to the complainant: or (2) He may take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) and issue process straightway to the accused without being bound by the conclusions of the investigating agency, where he is satisfied that upon the facts discovered or unearthed by the police, there is sufficient ground to proceed; or (3) He may order further investigation, if he is satisfied that the investigation was made in the perfunctory manner, or (4) He may, without issuing process or dropping the proceedings decide to take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) upon the original complaint or protest petition treating the same as complaint and proceed to act under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. and thereafter decide whether complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued. This view has been reiterated by this Court in Crl. Misc. No.M- 4542 of 2008 decided on 6-1-2009. A perusal of position of law enunciated in Pakhandu's case (supra) show that in the present case, the Magistrate Crl. Misc. No.47431-M of 2007 -3- had proceeded u/s 190 (1) (a) upon the protest petition, treated the same as complaint and thereby he acted u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He had issued the process against the accused u/s 120-B IPC vide Annexure P-4. The grievance of the petitioner is that accused should have been summoned u/s 364 read with Section 511 read with Section 120-B also. Annexure P-4 to Crl. Misc. No.39994-M of 2007 has been assailed in this Court and it has been stated that the grave error was committed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Palwal for not summoning the accused u/s 364/511/120-B IPC. Summoing of the accused is just an initiation of the proceedings. In case pre-charge evidence is led or after charge is framed, there is sufficient evidence on the case file, charge can always be amended and framed u/s 364 read with Section 511/120-B IPC. In the present case, in case from the evidence led ingredients of offence u/s 364/511 IPC is made out, the petitioner is at liberty to urge before the Magistrate to frame the charge. With these observations, Crl. Misc. No.47431-M of 2007 and Crl. Misc. No.39994-M of 2007 are disposed of. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 27-1-2009 JUDGE manju