1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 15021-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.7.2009 *** Jit Singh @ Ajit Singh & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Gurdev Kaur .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. V.K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioners are seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.91 dated 13.8.2005, under Sections 387, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 511 IPC titled as Gurdev Kaur Vs. Ajit Singh & Ors. filed by the respondent and also to the order dated 1.4.2009 whereby the petitioners and others have been summoned by the Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Kapurthala for commission of the aforesaid offences. 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 1.4.2009 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 pointed out that the said allegations pertain to the year 2001 while the complaint has been filed with inordinate delay only on 13.8.2005. The arguments have been scanned. The impugned order reads thus: 2 “Heard, there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused under Sections 387/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 506/ 511 IPC. Therefore accused are ordered to be summoned for 9.5.2009.” 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 reveals that nothing has been discussed therein as to what were the nature of allegations and evidence produced by the complainant to substantiate the same, which proves sufficient for the court below to summon the petitioners under the aforesaid provisions of Indian Penal Code. 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 passed by the learned court below cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court below with a direction to first withdraw the process issued against the petitioners pursuant to order dated 1.4.2009, which since has been set aside and then to pass afresh order on the point of summoning of the petitioners, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Court concerned on 24.8.2009. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 16,2009 Jiten