CRM No.M-3086 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-3086 of 2010 Date of decision:22.09.2011 Mool Chand & others ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioners, Mr.Raja Sharma, AAG Haryana, Mr.Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, Advocate, for Mr.Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ****** Augustine George Masih J. (Oral) Challenge in this petition is for quashing of order dated 11.12.2008 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu (Annexure P1) and the judgment dated 15.01.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani (Annexure P3) vide which the revision petition preferred by the petitioners challenging order dated 11.12.2008 passed by the trial Court, summoning the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. It is the contention of the counsel for the CRM No.M-3086 of 2010 2 petitioners that while passing order dated 11.12.2008, the learned trial Court has not considered the statement which has been given by the complainant and other witnesses or the evidence which has been relied upon by the Court to summon the petitioners. It is a totally non-speaking order which cannot be sustained. He accordingly prays for setting aside impugned order dated 11.12.2008 as also the order passed by the revisional Court dated 15.01.2010 on the ground that the revisional Court also, while accepting the order passed by the trial Court, has observed that it is a well reasoned and speaking order. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the reasons are very much available in the order passed by the trial Court as it has been mentioned that the names of the petitioners are available in the FIR and the allegations have also been spelt out therein which has been so reiterated by the complainant while appearing before the Court as prosecution witness (PW1). He accordingly states that the impugned orders deserve to be upheld. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. Although, the powers under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code, which have been exercised by the trial Court, are wide enough but nevertheless, the same are to be exercised with due care and caution and the order must, if not in detail, refer to and consider the evidence on the basis of which the Court has formed an opinion that the offence appear to have been committed by the CRM No.M-3086 of 2010 3 person(s) against whom the Court intends to proceed to try, can be made out. These basic requirements of the statute and law are missing in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.12.2008 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu (Annexure P1) is hereby set aside. Consequently, revisional order dated 15.01.2010 passed by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani (Annexure P3) also stands set aside. The trial Court is directed to consider the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 22.09.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) sailesh JUDGE