IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.3268 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.12.2009 Maninder Kumar and others ....Petitioners through Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents through none CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... MAHESH GROVER, J.(Oral) Crl.Misc.Nos.63994 & 63995 of 2009 Crl.Misc. are allowed as prayed for. Crl.Rev.No.3268 of 2009 Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the impugned order dated 17.11.2009 has contended that the observations made by the Addl. Sessions Judge in the impugned order that the offence under Sections 406/498-A IPC was sufficiently established against the petitioners on the basis of preliminary evidence and that a summoning order ought to have been passed by the learned SDJM, Anandpur Sahib is likely to prejudice his case in the eventuality of the same being reconsidered pursuant to the directions given in the impugned order. He thus contends that the order of remand is likely to prejudice the case of the petitioners and that it would preclude the Crl.Rev.No.3268 of 2009 (O&M) -2- independent application of mind by the court while reconsidering the matter. He further contends that the Addl. Sessions Judge has further directed the petitioners to present themselves before the trial magistrate and this in fact amounts to summoning them even before the court assessed the impact of the material before it. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised before this court are persuasive. The Addl. Sessions Judge has gone wrong in observing as follows :- “.....No doubt the sanction to prosecute has been given against accused no.1 to 3 under Dowry Prohibition Act and thus no offence punishable under sections 4, 6 & 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against respondents no.4 to 8, but in so far as the offence under sections 406/498-A IPC is concerned, there is sufficient preliminary evidence to show that a summoning order ought to have been passed thereunder. Perusal of the complaint reveals that in paras no.5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 there are specific allegations leveled against accused no.4 to 8 regarding the offence under sections 406/498-A IPC. Even the list of dowry articles has been attached showing the articles entrusted to accused/respondents no.4 to 8...” This clearly amounts to prejudging the matter which ought not to have been done by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge while remanding the matter back for reconsideration afresh. Having regard to the aforesaid, it is deemed appropriate to Crl.Rev.No.3268 of 2009 (O&M) -3- dispose of this petition with the direction to the trial magistrate that he shall reconsider the matter as directed by the Addl. Sessions Judge but without being prejudiced by the observations which have been reproduced above. He shall independently apply his mind to the material on record and shall record his conclusion. The petitioners in the meantime shall not appear before the trial magistrate as directed by the Addl. Sessions Judge unless such a conclusion is recorded by the trial magistrate after perusal of the material before him afresh. In the eventuality of him coming to the conclusion that the petitioners are required to face the proceedings, he shall summon them thereafter. Revision stands disposed of. 16.12.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss